Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY
AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL
[Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Merchant Company; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 8th June and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to East Kilbride District Council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 8th June and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Humberside since January 1976.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were sold in 1975.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I will, with permission, answer this Question and Question No. 3 together.
In 1975, English authorities reported the sale of about 2,000 council dwellings not built specifically for sale. In Humberside five such dwellings have been sold since January 1976.

Mr. Brotherton: As was the case with Lincolnshire some weeks ago, is that not a disgracefully low figure? Will the Minister assure the House that in view of the recent local government elections the Government will now actively encourage local authorities to sell council houses to sitting tenants?

Mr. Freeson: The Government stand by the policy advice issued in Circular 70/74 soon after we came into office and which was discussed in a recent debate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman turns his attention to the local authorities in question before asking me what their particular policies should be.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Frend stand firmly by the circular to which he has referred, which stated that it was generally wrong to sell council houses where there was a substantial need for them? There are very few places in the country where there is not a substantial need. Will he insist on all councils, including Conservative-controlled councils, observing that ban, just as the Conservative Government insisted on Labour councils raising rents and actually punishing councillors who did not do so?

Mr. Freeson: I can only repeat what was made clear in the course of the recent debate and on other occasions: that the Government certainly, as my hon. Friend requests, stand by the advice issued in that circular.

Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister answering Question No. 3 with this Question?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Montgomery: I do not know who has permitted the Minister to answer Questions Nos. 1 and 3 together, because they are totally different. Does he accept that the sale of council houses will not have much effect on council house waiting lists, because the people in those houses will stay on to rent them if they


are not allowed to buy them? Will he therefore withdraw Circular 70/74 and issue a new circular asking local authorities to get on with the job of selling council houses to sitting tenants?

Mr. Freeson: There are two or three points in the hon. Gentleman's question. It would be wrong to generalise about the effect of sales on council house lists. One has to look, as we have advised and urged and will continue to urge, at particular local situations. I would only make the point—it is difficult to go into detail at Question Time—that the hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that there are remits which vary from one area to another. However, they are an important factor to take into account alongside the building programme that a particular local authority is undertaking in relation to the demand on the waiting list—growing, static or whatever it might be—in a particular situation.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: In respect of Humberside, does my hon. Friend have a figure available for the total length of waiting lists for council accommodation in all the districts of the county?

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid, not without notice.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister accept that where there is surplus housing in the private sector it makes more sense to give council tenants grants to enable them to move from council housing into the private sector and so leave the council housing available to others who are on the waiting list?

Mr. Freeson: If I understand the background to the question correctly, it would be a mistake, and it would be politically and policywise stupid, to sell off rented accommodation which is required to meet local waiting lists while empty accommodation is available in the owner-occupied market in the same area.

Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the publication of the Layfield Committee's report on local government finance.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I would refer

my hon. Friend to my statement to the House of 19th May.

Mr. Canavan: In respect of local income tax, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Government's devolution proposals? Would it not be better to give the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies some revenue-raising powers, such as local income tax, in order to make them more responsible for raising the money they will spend, instead of simply relying on a block grant from the Treasury?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will be aware that that proposal has not been made either by the Government in our own proposals or by the Layfield Committee in its report. But, of course, the Scottish local authorities, if in fact the scheme for a local income tax found favour, would be included in the proposal.

Mr. McCrindle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we accepted the Layfield recommendations as they are we would run the risk of getting the worst of both worlds? Would it not be far better either to retain the rating system or to go over to a system of local income tax without in the process needing to find an additional 12,000 civil servants?

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the introduction of a local income tax and the retention of the rating system being, as he says, the worst of both worlds. However, this is a matter on which he would not expect me at present to announce a view. I am genuinely seeking to hear the views not only of hon. Members but also, of course, of the many bodies outside the House with a close interest in the matter.

Mr. Corbett: In view of the sustained and continuing interest in the matter of local rates, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a popular edition of Layfield, much attenuated and highly shortened, aiming to get it on the market for 10p or 15p, and inviting people who buy it to complete some kind of questionnaire, which would help them to face up to the hard realities of the choices involved in Layfield?

Mr. Shore: I am a little dubious about the posibility of putting this very complex report to people in quite that


sense of inviting them to subscribe to particular propositions in the form of a questionnaire. However, whether or not a more popular version of Layfield could be put together and whether that would be useful in terms of consultation is something to which I shall give further thought.

Mr. Crawford: Returning to his reply to the lion. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan), would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the logical sequel to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly is the scrapping of the regions in Scotland?

Mr. Shore: It is not for me to deliver an opinion on that at present, but no doubt all these matters will be rehearsed and fully debated in the forthcoming debates when the House turns its mind to the proposals for devolution to Scotland.

Mr. Speed: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) mean that the Government's view on Layfield will not become clear until early next year, after the entire consultation period?

Mr. Shore: I think that our full and considered response to Layfield should await the receipt and study of the many submissions which we have asked people to make to us. There may be certain matters within Layfield on which it might be possible to announce a decision at an earlier date.

Parish Councillors

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to enable all members of a parish council to speak and vote at the parish meeting of the corresponding parish.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): We will certainly keep this point in mind for further consideration.

Dr. Marshall: Is it not anomalous that a person living just outside the boundaries of a parish can be elected to the parish council but even when so elected is unable to participate in the annual parish meeting?

Mr. Barnett: I accept that this is something of an anomaly, but a parish councillor can always attend and speak at a parish meeting by invitation.

Southampton

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to Southampton.

Mr. Shore: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Adley: If the right hon. Gentleman does go to Southampton, will he take the opportunity to meet the chairman of the housing committee and let him explain to him that the fact that the Conservative Party won 46 out of 51 seats in Southampton is directly related to the policy of the Conservative group of seeking to sell council houses to sitting tenants? As the Secretary of State is a democrat and said at the time of the referendum that he would always wish to accept the will of the electorate, will he assure the House that the Government will take no steps to frustrate the will of the electorate, expressed so clearly on this matter?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Member's question may be founded on a false premise—that is, that the success of the Conservative Party in the recent local elections in Southampton was uniquely due to its policy on the sale of council houses. If that is so, the Conservative Party has an awful lot of explaining to do about what happened in Manchester, where a similar programme was put forward in the most generous terms yet no change in control resulted. If the hon. Gentleman visits Southampton again, therefore, I hope that he will continue to draw the attention of his friends on the council to the terms of Circular 70/74.

Mr. Heffer: If my right hon. Friend should eventually decide to go to Southampton, will he make a detour and go via Liverpool, where he will discover that the Conservative Party did not win 46 seats in the local elections and that there is a great deal of urban deprivation? Will he, therefore, consider for Liverpool a similar scheme to that which has just been announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Glasgow, where houses will be built and industry will be developed by the Scottish


Development Agency and the Scottish Housing Agency without any of the finance falling on the local rates?

Mr. Shore: I hope in time to visit many of our more successful port cities during the next year or so. On the specific question about the problems of Liverpool, problems which it shares with other major cities in terms of urban deprivation, we are making intensive studies of these problems and I hope in due course to be able to report further.

Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make no fewer than 89 other detours on his way to Southampton so as to visit the 89 other authorities which went Conservative at the district elections? He will then find overwhelming evidence of a desire for the widespread sale of council houses.

Mr. Shore: I shall not limit my visits simply to Conservative-controlled strongholds. However, I shall of course be very willing, on appropriate occasions, to hear the views of leaders of councils of whatever political hue they happen to be.

New Town Houses (Sale)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now introduce a Bill to give families living in new town coporation houses a statutory right to buy their homes.

Mr. Guy Barnett: No, Sir.

Mr. Arnold: Would not the Minister agree that the Government's position as revealed in the debate last week nevertheless remains somewhat ambiguous? If discussions are to take place with new town chairmen, why should that fact of itself preclude a statutory right to buy when and where local conditions permit?

Mr. Barnett: This matter must be discussed with the new town chairmen, because the Government's policy is to try to look at this matter new town by new town in the light of local considerations and the fact that we must give higher priority to those who rely on rented accommodation for a home.

Mr. Moonman: Would not my hon. Friend agree that much of this argument by the Opposition is a diversion which conceals a great lack of interest—indeed,

antipathy—towards the whole concept of new towns?

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Barnett: I do not know whether to agree with my hon. Friend about this. I always like to have a generous view of the views of the Opposition on this matter. I would only say that the difference between the Opposition and ourselves is that they take rather a doctrinaire approach to this matter.

Mr. Carlisle: Since the Minister has agreed under great pressure to change his dogmatic approach on this matter, will he give me an assurance that the arangements which are made in the meetings with the chairmen of new town corporations will ensure that tenants in the new town of Runcorn who wish to do so will have the opportunity to buy their houses, an idea which is supported by the development corporation?

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend has never been dogmatic on this matter, nor has the Labour Party. The reason why a ban was placed on the sale of new town houses is as well known to the hon. and learned Member as it is to the House—that when we took over there were long waiting lists in many of the new towns as a consequence of indiscriminate sale during the Conservatives' period of office. We shall have to look at the situation in Runcorn in the light of local considerations, and I am sure that that is what will be done.

Mr. Corbett: When my hon. Friend is involved in consultations with the chairmen of the new town authorities, will he bear in mind that many of them are responsible for repairing the neglect of previous Tory councils which are now within the boundaries of new towns because of local government reorganisation? Will he take into account the appallingly long waiting lists, such as that in my area, which were inherited from districts which are now within the new towns?

Mr. Barnett: We will bear that in mind.

Mr. Arthur Jones: How do the Government justify treating tenants in council houses owned by local housing authorities differently from tenants of the new town development corporations?

Mr. Barnett: Tenants of council houses owned by local authorities are in one situation and the tenants of new town houses are in another situation determined by the responsibilities of new town corporations to national as well as local needs.

National Water Council

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends meeting the Chairman of the National Water Council.

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friends and I are in frequent contact with the Chairman of the National Water Council. We met him and the chairmen of the water authorities recently to discuss the problems of the water shortage. Future meetings will be fixed whenever necessary.

Mr. Morris: As the right hon. Gentleman has been meeting the chairmen and other senior representatives weekly for several weeks, has he any news for the nation about the situation in the drought areas? Is he proposing that the coordinating body should give any guidance to industry and domestic consumers about saving water?

Mr. Shore: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a special interest in this matter. We are maintaining a close contact at official levels and receiving weekly reports from various water authorities. We are monitoring the situation closely. On the present state of play I think that I am still right to confirm that there is not a national problem. However, there is a problem in certain water authority areas, but even there it is localised. We are looking to the future and anticipating both a normal and a dry summer.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, although there may be local problems, there will be a growing shortage of water in future years? Will he look with urgency at experiments for providing cisterns that do not need major flushes on each occasion that they are used and thus save water? Such experiments have been conducted in other countries.

Mr. Shore: I am glad to take whatever technical advice is offered on these matters, but I hesitate to offer any myself.

On the larger question of the increased use of water by industry and domestic consumers in the longer term, the Water Council was set up to keep the matter under review and the larger water authorities were established with that in mind. We are not yet satisfied with the arrangements and we have issued a consultative document to elicit further views on this important matter.

Roads (Traffic Lanes)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered introducing fast traffic lanes for vehicles carrying three or more persons.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): Yes. Powers already exist for local authorities, or the Secretary of State in the case of trunk roads, to provide priority lanes for any specified types of traffic. In practice these are normally used as bus lanes.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the Minister aware of the experiment in the United States along the lines of my Question? Does he know that as a result of that experiment the number of commuters travelling one to a car has been substantially reduced, thereby reducing the density of commuter-time traffic and speeding it up? Will the Minister consider introducing a similar experiment on trunk roads in this country?

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman has chosen an appropriate date for his American idea. The situation is different in the United States where the experiment applies to urban motorways, which have as many as 17 lanes in which to segregate the traffic. The scheme is not carried out in city streets.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that taxis are an intermediate form of public transport and should be regarded as part of the public transport system? Is his Department in close contact with the GLC about the proposed speedbus arrangements?

Mr. Marks: We are having discussions about the speedbus. Taxis in London are easily recognisable but they are not always so in other towns. Oxford is carrying out an experiment with taxis which involves the word "Taxi" being


prominently displayed on the vehicles. My Department certainly has no objection to that experiment.

Direct Labour (Review)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider appointing a director of housing or a housing manager to the working party which was recently set up to review the operation and structure of direct labour organisations.

Mr. Freeson: An assistant director in the Greater London Council's housing maintenance department attends as an observer and the working party will seek advice from other experts in this field.

Mr. Fitch: Would it not be better for the Minister to appoint someone in a full-time capacity rather than as an observer? Does he not agree that someone with the expertise of a director of housing should be a member of the working party?

Mr. Freeson: I am reluctant to increase the size of the working party. I assure my hon. Friend that the observer is a participating attender. The special representation from the local government side is nominated by the local authority associations. It includes finance officers, works directors, city engineers, county surveyors, and architects. However, I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind should we decide to increase the size of the working party.

Mr. Michael Latham: When is the working party likely to report?

Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to say.

Council house Building

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were started in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively; and how many are planned for 1976.

Mr. Freeson: Totals of 99,549, 133,528 and 153,366 new council dwellings were started in Great Britain in 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively. A total of 36,762 was started in the first quarter of this year. Taking the public sector as a whole, starts were up 22 per cent. on the same period last year.

Mr. Janner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on those results. Is he aware that they are unlikely to continue because so many Tory councils which have been elected to power have been celebrating their victories by threatening to cut council house-building programmes? Does he not deplore any such cuts? Will he confirm that the Government's top priority in council house building is to provide homes for those who need them most?

Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his opening remarks. I am fearful of what may take place in a number of areas as a result of policy changes. I shall be watching the position closely. I hope that the fears expressed in some quarters and, indeed, the desire expressed in some Tory quarters—that there should be a cut-back in house building by local authorities—will not be substantiated. I hope that we shall see the present levels sustained as they have been in the past two years. I look forward to hearing some specific and positive encouragement from Conservative spokesmen on this subject.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not the case that, seasonally adjusted, council house starts fell by 14 per cent. between February and April this year compared with the previous three months? Does the Minister agree with the view of spokesmen of the house-building industry that that fall is likely to continue for industrial reasons?

Mr. Freeson: I have no evidence whatever from any spokesmen of the house-building industry to suggest that there will be a fall in local authority housing starts. The only suggestions in that direction have been from the Tory Party.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative-controlled authorities, which have never shown any enthusiam for council house building or their tenants, will be tempted to substitute a policy of selling council houses for one of building them? What steps are to be taken in that situation?

Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to say what steps we shall take. I have indicated that we shall be watching the situation very closely and that I hope that the fears will not be realised. I repeat that I should welcome an exhortation from


leading Conservative spokesmen nationally in favour of continued and increased building of local authority housing by local authorities throughout the country.

Mr. Raison: Will the Minister now acknowledge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) that there has been a fall of 14 per cent. in public housing starts over the past quarter compared with the previous quarter? Is he aware that in a recent publication Shelter estimated that the Public Expenditure White Paper indicated that council building would fall below 150,000?

Mr. Freeson: I repeat my question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall repeat it no matter how much shouting there is from the Opposition Benches. I repeat my request that leading national spokesmen of the Tory Party should call upon their fellow members of the party in local government to sustain the house-building programme.
Now I shall deal with the points that were put in order to dodge the question that I put to the leading spokesmen of the Tory Party.

Mr. Michael Morris: We are not in Government.

Mr. Freeson: Variations in quarterly figures have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) before, and he has proved to be inaccurate every time. The annual national figures have continued to rise. Subject to the concern about the future conduct of Tory-controlled councils, we hope and believe—and certainly the Government will make the resources available for this—that local authority house-building programmes will be sustained at their increased level of the past two years.
The question of the figures in the White Paper has been raised by the hon. Gentleman before, and we have had detailed correspondence since. There are no figures in the White Paper to support any suggestion that there will be a reduction in local authority housing starts so far as the Government are concerned. The only source of anxiety on that score must be the action of members of the Tory Party nationally and in local government.

Mr. Raison: Is it not completely nonsensical to talk about a fall of 14 per cent. which has already taken place and lay the blame on the results of the district elections held since then?

Mr. Freeson: I am laying no blame. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to come clean. Does the Tory Party favour a sustaining of the house-building programme—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not heard such a noisy Question Time for ages.

Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, instead of answering questions at Question Time, to start asking questions?

Mr. Speaker: It is remarkable how questions are answered from time to time. I have done it myself. I call the Minister—briefly, I hope.

Mr. Freeson: The house-building programme by local government will be sustained at its present level so far as the resources projected in the White Paper on Public Expenditure are concerned. We shall provide resources that will sustain the present increase. It is no answer to that to suggest that because there is a drop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—in one particular quarter compared with the previous quarter the annual figures will go down. There are always variations between quarterly figures throughout the year.
I return to my question: does the Tory Party intend—[Interruption.]—to sustain the house-building programme? We must take the answer to be "No."

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we shall reach the other Questions if we allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his sentence.

Mr. Freeson: It is interesting to observe the Opposition's reaction. We shall have to watch the conduct of the Tory Party in this connection.

British Railways

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received British Railways' annual report for 1975–76; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: I laid the board's report and accounts for 1975 before Parliament on 12th May 1976.

Mr. Durant: When does the right hon. Gentleman visualise the report showing a balance and going into profit? Secondly, where does the annual report show the cost of concessionary fares for railway staff? Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report shows that the number of executives has nearly doubled in the past year?

Mr. Shore: The question of concessionary fares is a very specialised matter. I have a feeling that it may come up in a debate on a Bill before long. I cannot hazard a figure for that, but if the lion. Gentleman wishes to put down a specific Question I shall give him an answer.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can we look forward hopefully to a day in our lifetime when transport will be treated as a social service and not merely a money-making enterprise which is given a grant and must balance its books, or shall we be safely tucked up by the time that occurs?

Mr. Shore: I think my hon. Friend will agree that we must approach transport services in the knowledge that they use resources and, therefore, must be paid for. Whether they are paid for directly by the user or indirectly by the taxpayer is a matter of judgment. But as regards the Government and the doctrine in the consultation document, the important thing is to sustain a sufficient public transport service. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. Gow: What is the Government's judgment as to where the balance should lie between fares charged and subsidy paid by the taxpayer? What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount of subsidy payable to British Rail this year by the Government?

Mr. Shore: The figures for the next three or four years, covering the public expenditure forecast period, have been published and are well known. They do not permit of an open-ended subsidy, but provision is still being made for substantial support for the railway system.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Rail has taken a courageous decision to freeze rail fares for several months and that it should

be congratulated on that because it is more likely to generate additional revenue and traffic? But does he also agree that we have the lowest freight usage of railways in the whole of Europe and that we are not achieving a significant shift from road to rail? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend says about the freeze on fares until the end of the year, which will be widely welcomed by the travelling public after the inevitable increases of the past 12 months. Freight usage is one of the central questions that the transport review discussed. I shall be most anxious to hear the views not only of the railways—management and unions—but of other transport providers on this whole question.

Mr. Stephen Ross: flow many representations has the right hon. Gentleman received about British Rail's decision to withdraw facilities for racing pigeons and show birds, following legislation passed by the House? Is he prepared to introduce amending legislation which will enable this freight to continue? It affects my constituency very much and is a useful source of income to British Rail. It would enable British Rail to show something on the credit side.

Mr. Shore: The subject of pigeons on British Rail—[An HON. MEMBER: "And rabbits."]—was, I think, first raised when I last appeared before the House at Question Time. I have since inquired into the matter, and I am assured that the transport users' consultative committees and the central consultative committee are considering it. I shall decide what, if anything, I should do about it when I have received their reports.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister say what effect the last fare increases had on the number of passengers who travel by rail? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's plan to eliminate the deficit on freight, which is currently running at £70 million? If that is the Government's plan, by what date do the Government intend to bring about that situation?

Mr. Shore: The evidence we have about the effect of increased fares on passenger movements, based on last year which shows an increase of some 50 per cent. in passenger fares, was accompanied


by a surprisingly small fall of 2 per cent. in passenger journeys. I do not draw any conclusions from that fact for the future, but those are the facts as we have them.
On the question of the deficit of £70 million, the hon. Gentleman knows that on our PESC forecasts we hope to eliminate the freight deficit by 1978. That is one matter, among others, which I shall be discussing with British Rail.

Housing Stock

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to issue a circular on better use of the existing housing stock.

Mr. Freeson: I hope to do so before long.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the existing stock well exceeds the number of households? Does he not agree that the best service which he can provide for hard-pressed taxpayers—and certainly to assist many young families and young people who require accommodation—is to increase improvement grants and also to increase the allowances to local authorities to enable them to grant more local authority mortgages?

Mr. Freeson: I accept that the question of maintaining and improving the existing housing stock is of vital and central importance, alongside additions to stock as a matter of public policy and practice. We shall issue policy guidelines as soon as we are able to do so. This does not mean that we are not taking administrative action on a day-to-day basis with local authorities in increasing the variety of steps which they can take in this area. We are concerned about the drop in the number of improvement grants. We are discussing these matters in various quarters and are examining ways in which to improve the situation. Indeed, we have taken some steps recently.
On the subject of loans to local authorities, apart from the mortgage famine period of 1973–75, we are now running at a level that is somewhat above normal, although it is still too low. However, to increase the figure would mean that we should have to increase public expenditure, and we cannot do so at present.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that his recent decision to enable local authorities to purchase houses that are unoccupied without good reason for two months is much appreciated, because it will prevent the destruction of many good homes by vandals? Will he now consider stepping up the compulsory purchase order procedure so that these matters can be completed within six weeks, as he has done in certain other cases?

Mr. Freeson: We are prepared to examine more efficient processing of CPOs in the Department. I shall examine that matter further. However, we must bear in mind that the vast bulk of houses purchased by local authorities under municipalisation and rehabilitation programmes are handled through negotiation. A small number indeed are the subject of CPOs—a matter of a few hundred compared with something like 17,000 to 20,000 purchased by negotiation. This matter is not as important in terms of policy as it may sometimes appear to be.

Mr. Michael Morris: When the Minister issues the circular, will he include provisions to remove the restriction on the sale of housing association accommodation units?

Mr. Freeson: The sale of housing association houses is subject to the legislative framework rather than to policy guidelines issued in circulars. The future rôle of housing associations could possibly include the building of houses for low-income families, including shared equity schemes. We are examining these matters.

Mr. Rossi: In preparing his circular, will the Minister include two other matters? First, will he give guidance to local authorities to adopt the North Wiltshire scheme, which would bring more privately-rented accommodation into use, and also have regard to the model form of lease, which is at present a problem? Secondly, will he encourage local authorities to prepare more accurate and comprehensive lists of empty properties in their ownership, having regard to short-life properties which are not included in annual returns?

Mr. Freeson: In the first place short-life properties are included, unless they are classified as slums for demolition.


The relet survey covers the purchase as well as the erection of purpose-built properties, with the one qualification I have mentioned. Over 40 authorities, with our encouragement and backing, are undertaking various kinds of listing arrangements. They are not all modelled on the North Wiltshire scheme. Some authorities are giving five- and seven-year leases rather than monthly or short-term arrangements. A special study is being conducted into the leasing arrangements generally, and I hope that it will produce good results.

Fleet Line

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the extension of the Fleet Line to South-East London.

Mr. Marks: The case for the Fleet/ River Line is being examined in the context of the total strategy for docklands redevelopment, on which my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that wherever the Fleet Line eventually ends up, and however it gets there, an announcement is urgently needed on this matter if a great deal of human expertise and equipment is not to be wasted? Is he also aware that the building of this line as far as Fenchurch Street and beyound should not only benefit the redevelopment of the docklands but should help South-East London and the Lewisham area in particular, which traditionally has been the poor relation to London's public transport system?

Mr. Marks: Greater London is now awaiting comments on a document which has been issued for discussion between the Department and the Greater London authorities. The question as to which part of the Fleet Line should have priority is a matter for the Greater London Council, but it is part of local government responsibility to ensure that public money is well spent.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will the Minister bear in mind that the harassed commuters of South London, including those in Orpington, have no other form of public transport on which to rely than that provided

by the Southern Region of British Rail, which unfortunately is often insufficient and unreliable?

Mr. Marks: In the discussions on transportation matters between the Greater London Council and other authorities and the Department, full cognisance will be taken of that mater.

Vehicle Testing Examiners

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend to all authorised examiners running vehicle testing stations who have already had their authorisation withdrawn on a first offence without warning the new modified withdrawal scheme, under which all present and future first offenders are given a written warning first.

Mr. Marks: I regret that this would not be practicable. There are many cases involved, extending over several years, and there would be great difficulty in ensuring equitable treatment for them all.

Mr. Mitchell: Since the Minister has already accepted the principle that it would be appropriate to give warnings, is he not now prepared to accept for reconsideration applications from firms which have had licences withdrawn on a first-come, first-served basis?

Mr. Marks: There would be great difficulty in making this matter retrospective, and there would also be difficulties in regard to manpower and time spent on these matters in the Department. Most of the firms which have had their authorisations withdrawn have been suspended for a period of five years. That figure relates to the period 1968 to 1971. The bulk of these cases are now returning to the Department and will require a great deal of consideration.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend say when it will be possible for firms which lost their authorisations under the old scheme, with some hardship as a result of isolated lapses, to reapply for licences? Does he not agree that many of these firms deserve to be relicensed?

Mr. Marks: A documentation offence involves a suspension of two years, but other, more serious matters involve suspensions of up to five years.

Lorry Routes

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have been held with the Countryside Commission about the proposed network of heavy lorry routes.

Mr. Marks: The Countryside Commission commented on the original proposals in December 1974 and discussed the revised proposals of January 1976 with the Department's officials on 26th March.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has provided welcome information? Does he appreciate that the information available to me earlier was that there had been no discussion with the Countryside Commission prior to drawing up this new map? Is he also aware that the Peak District National Park is extremely disturbed by the proposal that a substantial number of heavy lorry routes will run through the park under the new map proposals?

Mr. Marks: It is true that a great many lorries already run through the park. We are still considering the whole question of lorry routes and primary routes, bearing in mind that the national parks often have trunk roads running through them. We shall have to consider the need for other roads to deal with this.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities, and I refer particularly to Cheshire County Council, might well be abusing the 1973 Act in that they are proposing that predominantly rural areas—I refer to North Rode and Gawsworth in my constituency—should have their narrow lanes opened up for use by heavy vehicles, which is surely detrimental to the rural environment and the objectives of the Act?

Mr. Marks: I would presume that there is no restriction at present on those lanes. It is a matter for local authorities to limit the size of vehicles on roads where such size is considered dangerous for either other vehicles or pedestrians.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend confirm the clear statement by his Department that it is its object to exclude

heavy lorries and major trunk routes from national parks wherever possible?

Mr. Marks: Certainly. We shall do this as far as possible. In some national parks, the Peak District National Park in particular, there is heavy industry. Some of us may regret that it is there, but the vehicles need to reach that industry.

Sir Anthony Royle: Will the Minister open consultations with the Greater London Council in connection with the damage that heavy lorries are causing in large parts of South London? Is he aware that in Richmond areas are being ruined by the number of heavy lorries passing through? Does he appreciate that permission was given for these lorries by the GLC? Will he discuss this matter with the GLC?

Mr. Marks: Yes. This is a matter for the Greater London Council. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in two Adjournment debates. The Greater London Council should take note of what was said on those occasions.

National Carriers Ltd and Freightliners

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider transferring National Carriers Limited and Freightliners back to British Railways, in the interests of an integrated transport policy.

Mr. Shore: The consultation document on transport policy invites comments on this proposal.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his hon. Friends correctly warned the Government in 1968 that the present organisation of NCL and Freightliners would result in the transfer of freight from rail to road, contrary to the objective of the 1968 Act? Bearing this in mind, will my right hon. Friend consider taking action to reverse this trend, if necessary implementing the quantity licensing provisions or declaring a withdrawal of the freight subsidy until heavy lorries are taxed according to their true costs?

Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend has said about the 1968 Act. He will also recall that under that Act the National Freight Corporation has a duty to use


rail where to do so is efficient and economic. That duty is clearly upon it, although it is not a mandatory use of rail, for that would be contrary to the purpose of the NFC. Quantity licensing and the other issues which my hon. Friend has mentioned are issues that will be discussed in the course of the consultations on the transport review.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the NFC is this week announcing a record loss of £30 million, half of which comes from National Carriers? Does he recognise that, far above the integration of transport, the public expect action to eliminate those losses?

Mr. Shore: Many firms and organisations have suffered losses during 1975. There has been the general problem of recession throughout our economy. A consultants' review is taking place into the financial and economic strategy of the NFC.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review his policy on the sale of council houses.

Mr. Shore: As the House knows, our policy was set out in Circular 70/74. I am keeping the matter under consideration in parallel with the housing finance review.

Mr. Newton: Rather than go back over all the ground covered earlier, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept that there is now widespread evidence of a substantial desire by tenants all ever the country to buy the homes in which they live? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, would he not agree that, if we mean business about being a democracy, it is time that all parties in the House responded to that desire?

Mr. Shore: There is indeed evidence not only of a substantial desire on the part of people all over the country to become owner-occupiers but, I am glad to say, evidence that more people are able to satisfy that desire. The fact that we have now reached the point where 53 per cent. of our fellow countrymen are owner-occupiers is a matter of great satisfaction.

I hope that the number will increase.
We have to bear in mind that there is a great shortage of rented houses, particularly in the major urban centres. It is right for us to say that local authorities should take due account of that and make their own judgments in the light of advice given in circulars.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that, when it is decided that the public's assets should be sold, it is right that they should be sold at full market price and not at a cut price?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that the conditions obtaining for the sale of council houses are a subject on which we have given advice. This is an area where there will inevitably be continuing debate.

Mr. Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a need for rented accommodation, why does he not take steps to increase the flow of private rented accommodation?

Mr. Shore: I might reply to that by asking why the advocates of owner-occupation and the sale of existing local authority rented houses do not advocate the sale of existing private rented accommodation. It is slightly ridiculous. The one thing on which the House as a whole might agree is that the major providers of homes in this country in the 1970s as in the 1960s will be either owner-occupiers or local authorities.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are relieved to hear that he is still committed to the terms of Circular 70/74? Is he further aware that many Conservative-controlled local authorities are determined to ignore the advice of that circular and to sell council houses, showing a total disregard of their obligations to provide a proper pool of rented housing? Does he intend to sit back and let them get away with this blatant asset-stripping? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do to stop this?

Mr. Shore: There is always the danger in any system of local democracy that there will be an irresponsible use of democratic power. My hon. Friend would be well advised—I should be well advised—not to come out with any


emphatic statement at present. We shall have to watch the situation and see how it develops.

Sir Raymond Gower: Reverting to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take account of the fact that, when private rented accommodation is sold, the sitting tenant usually buys at a lower price than a person buying a house with vacant possession? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a person who has occupied a council house for a considerable time should have a similar benefit?

Mr. Shore: That is a factor that has been argued in the past to justify some discount on the sale of local authority houses. I said "some" discount because it is important that there should not be the give-away which some people have been advocating.

Mr. Raison: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in an Adjournment debate last week his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reaffirmed the propriety of a discount on the sale of council houses?

Mr. Shore: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had heard what I said. I said that the terms of the discount were important in this context and that there was a case, as has been acknowledged, for some discount, but not a case for massive discount such as some people have been offered.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEETINGS OF COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during June. The monthly forecast for June was deposited yesterday.
At present, five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for June. The Foreign Ministers' meeting, which begins on 31st May, will continue on 1st June. [Interruption.] Foreign Ministers will meet again on the 28th and 29th; Energy Ministers on the 10th: Agriculture Ministers on the 21st and

22nd; and Social Affairs Ministers on 29th and 30th June. [Interruption.] There will also be a tripartite conference on 24th June of Finance and Employment Ministers, the Commission and European employer and trades union organisation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hattersley: As part of the follow-up to the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers on 14th and 15th May, Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council on 1st June are likely to resume consideration of the Tindemans Report and direct elections to the European Assembly. They are also likely to discuss passport union. On 31st May, Ministers will sign the Commercial Cooperation Agreement concluded in March 1976 between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the EEC. [Interruption.] There will also probably be consideration of Commission proposals for an agreement with Iran; the Community's external financial commitments; financial aid internal regulations in relation to the Maghreb and Malta; and discussion on Spain and Cyprus sherry. Ministers will also consider the siting of JET and preparations for Association Councils with Greece and Turkey.
At the Council on 28th and 29th June, Ministers will resume discussion of the overall Mediterranean approach and relations with the member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Ministers at both Council meetings will consider the problems posed by the prospect of 200-mile fishery limits and the current state of work in the four Commissions set up following the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hattersley: Ministers at the Energy Council will resume consideration of the energy policy guidelines adopted by the European Council on 1st and 2nd December 1975 and measures to be taken in the event of oil supply difficulties.
In June, Agriculture Ministers will resume their discussions of imports of New Zealand butter in the period 1978–80 and will also probably consider amended arrangements for beef imports.
At the Social Affairs Council, Ministers are expected to have before them draft


directives on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the case of mergers and on the education of migrant workers' children. They will also consider uniform payment of family benefits and may consider the outcome of the tripartite economic and social conference to be held on 24th June.
The tripartite conference on 24th June is expected to focus on the employment situation in the Community. [Interruption.] The outcome of the conference is likely to be considered at the Social Affairs Council.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a great swell of background noise and it is impossible to hear the Minister speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a little late. I called for order twice. The House seems to be excited.

Mr. Hurd: The Minister has outlined a formidable programme of work, but perhaps this it not the best moment to cross-examine him on it. However, will he reaffirm the undertaking which has often been sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that the Minister concerned will make a statement to the House on any of these meetings at which significant decisions are taken?

Mr. Hattersley: I reaffirm that assurance absolutely, but I do not necessarily think that my interpretation of "significant" will agree with that of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: During that long, rambling statement, which none of us heard, I believe that I may have heard some reference to the Ministers of Agriculture meeting to discuss something to do with butter and beef. If that is the case, may we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will discuss the question of the allowance of the import of beef from Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries without let or hindrance and will not play ball with the other Common Market countries in storing beef to keep the price up and thus prevent the British housewife from getting beef at a reasonable price? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no agreement

will be reached unless we discuss it in this House?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not hear all my statement but, knowing his assiduity in this matter, I am sure that, if he has read the written statement yesterday and has checked all the details in it, he will understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be preserving the interests of the British consumer. At the same time, he will want to balance the interests of the agriculture industry in this country. A balance has to be struck between the two.

Mr. Powell: What preliminary proceedings will there be in this House before the meeting at which direct elections are to be further considered?

Mr. Hattersley: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the Government accept without qualification that these are matters on which the House has to express its opinion, and the Select Committee was set up exactly for that purpose. I hope that it will move at such a speed that the House can consider and vote upon its report before any definite decisions have to be taken in the Council of Ministers. If, however, the House is sceptical about that, it might, as I have said, be reassured by one thing—that there cannot be direct elections until a Bill is carried in the House making it possible, and therefore the House's veto, if one wants to talk in such florid terms, is absolute.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in reputable English newspapers that the Commission is proposing that the Community should repudiate the agreement reached in Dublin in 1975 for the import of New Zealand butter into this country after 1980? Can he assure us that the British Government will not accept any repudiation of that agreement?

Mr. Hattersley: I assure my right hon. Friend that repudiation will be intolerable and, therefore, impossible. We undertook commitments to New Zealand. Those commitments we have to fulfil, and we will fulfil them.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Ministers statement mean that the 200-mile limit is now


official Community policy? Is it intended to discuss either the Icelandic situation or further representations at the Law of the Sea Conference? Is it intended to discuss the position of individual countries and their limits within the Community, and the protection of fishery stocks?

Mr. Hattersley: The Community is not yet corporately committed to the 200-mile limit. We have accepted that a 200-mile limit is the most likely outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference, but other member countries of the Community do not believe that it will be and hope that it will not be. Our policy will be to encourage other member nations to accept the reality and act on that principle.
The right hon. Gentleman's question involves the vexed issue of Community competence. We will insist that the Community's right to negotiate these matters with third countries, including Iceland, is in part dependent on its willingness to produce a common fisheries policy which meets the needs of the British fishing industry. One of our primary obligations and enthusiasms in the Community in the next six months will be to obtain a revision in that policy, and all other fishing issues will have to be subservient to that.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend's statement indicated that the Tindemans Report on European union will be discussed yet again. Can he give an assurance that there will be a debate in this House before that report is discussed for the second time? If it cannot be debated before 31st May, can we have a debate before 28th June, thus fulfilling the obligation to the House which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced shortly after taking office in that post?

Mr. Hattersley: The report has been discussed formally and informally more than twice among European Foreign Ministers and will be discussed several more times before the Community feels in a position to implement it or reject it. Whether a debate should be held between the first and second or the second and third meetings is a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will no doubt have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. John Davies: Among the many meetings which the right hon. Gentleman's rather muffled statement has given us to believe will take place, the one of the Energy Council is not unimportant. The issues concerned with the framework of energy policy centre largely around the floor price. The House will be interested to know where we are going on the Joint European Torus and also on Euratom finance. Will these matters also be dealt with at the Energy Council meeting?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry that the statement was muffled. That was not my responsibility but that of the House, which is expecting another statement of some sort in a few moments. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Joint European Torus will be discussed. We shall adopt the same position as a month ago, which is that Culham is the appropriate site. The financing to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention will also be on the agenda for one meeting or another.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I think I heard the Minister say, above the hubbub in the House, that the Minister of Agriculture would take steps to preserve the interests of the British consumer with regard to beef and butter. What are the steps that he will take?

Mr. Hattersley: What my hon. Friend heard me say was that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would next month—as he has done during the last 28 months—balance the importance of preserving the interests of the consumer with the equally important task of preserving the domestic industry, because indeed the British consumer is in no small measure dependent on our making sure that the domestic industry is viable. Balancing those two things, which may on occasions appear irreconcilable in the short term but which are wholly the same in the long term, will be the continued intention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Marten: On the question of direct elections, which the Ministers will discuss, may we have an assurance from the Government that they will not unreasonably force the pace of the work of the Select Committee? If the Select Committee comes up with a report based on insufficient evidence and investigation, it will not be taken very seriously.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the Select Committee feels that the problem exists as the hon. Gentleman has described it. The Select Committee knows the reality of the situation. There is a timetable of work within the Community. Quite uniquely, the Government have invited the House of Commons to set up a Select Committee which is monitoring the Government's attitudes and commenting on the Government's decisions. If the Select Committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, wants to influence Government decisions before they are taken rather than comment on them after they are taken, the Select Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I shall allow the hon. Gentlemen to indulge in their scathing indignation in a moment—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who is my right hon. Friend to decide?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions from sedentary positions are unacceptable here.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I am in order in pointing out that only you can decide who shall or shall not make any statement in the House. My right hon. Friend was saying that he would give permission to an hon. Member to make a statement, but it is you, Mr. Speaker, who give permission.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), on that harmonious note perhaps the Minister will continue.

Mr. Hattersley: The Government—as was understood and accepted by the House when we debated these matters—must, if it is to influence Europe, operate in relation to a timetable which is not altogether according to our decisions. What we hope, and what I believe the majority of the House hopes, is that the Select Committee will operate at a speed which enables the House to influence the Government before the decision is taken. That is certainly our wish, and I believe it to be the wish of the House as well.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister give the House the assurance that when he goes to the Commission he will let it know that all sections of the British fishing industry

are absolutely adamant that nothing less than 100 miles is acceptable? Will he also tell the Commission that in the forthcoming negotiations which will be necessary with a country on the other side of the North Sea—namely, Norway—only a representative of the British Government will carry out these negotiations and not somebody in the EEC who knows nothing whatsoever about the problem?

Mr. Hattersley: I would find it very difficult to say that in good conscience, because when I last attended the Council of Ministers and talked about our needs, being invariably within 50 miles of the British shore and most often within 35 miles of it, I received a telegram of support and congratulations from the leader of the Scottish fishing industry.

Mr. Skinner: May I take it that the appropriate Ministers will be discussing the harmonisation of import control throughout the EEC, now that Italy has introduced import control?

Mr. Hattersley: What I hope the Foreign Ministers will consider is the traditional policy of the Community to help those members who have special economic difficulties. When the Government of Italy, suffering from problems from which we have never suffered—I hope my hon. Friend will not suggest otherwise—came to the Community for special aid, the Community was ready to provide it. I have no doubt that that is absolutely consistent with the general attitude of the Nine.

Mr. Gow: Whatever view we may take about direct elections, does not the Minister agree that it is an insult to the House and to the Select Committee to hint that a decision may be taken about this before the report of the Select Committee is received?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I do not agree, because the decision is by no means in our hands. I do not agree also for a second reason. If the House disapproves of the position that the Government take up, the House has absolute power in its own hands not to vote for a Bill to implement direct elections. Those of us who have been involved in the question of direct elections have said for almost two years that whatever else is a Community competence, as opposed to the competence of the House of Commons, this cannot be in that category. If the House of


Commons does not approve of the corporate decision on direct elections within the Nine, the House of Commons can refuse to pass the Bill that makes that possible. What the Government are asking is for the Commons to help them in making their initial decision as to what compromise solution they come to. If, however, the timetable makes it impossible for the House of Commons Select Committee to advise the Government sufficiently early, I say again that the eventual power is in the hands of the House of Commons, which may, if it so chooses, defeat a Bill proposed to it by the Government for implementing direct elections.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday afternoon I gave a ruling in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, in reply to a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). This ruling was directed to the matters raised by the hon. Member in a written statement which he had been kind enough to give me earlier yesterday. However, in his oral point of order the hon. Member put forward new matter of which I had not hitherto been made aware.
I promised to make further inquiries and to make a statement when the Bill was reached. I have carried out my undertaking and have received representations from both sides of the House.
After long and anxious thought, I now rule that the Bill under discussion is prima facie hybrid.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Foot: May I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which you received the representations that several of us made to you on this subject.
In view of your statement, it is clearly impossible for the House of Commons to proceed with the Bill today. But may I make it also equally clear—and I hope the House will agree with this—that the House should have the earliest possible

opportunity of deciding how we proceed with the Bill.
The jobs and the livelihood of many people are involved—[Interruption.] We at least, Mr. Speaker, are not prepared to put those jobs and the livelihood of people at risk. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Government propose to table, as first business tomorrow, a motion which the House can decide to accept or to reject, whichever it wishes. It is for the House to decide. But the motion will have the full backing of the Government. Our motion reads as follows:
That, in view of the grave consequences for the industries concerned and for those employed in them of further delay and uncertainty in further proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the consideration of the application thereto of the provisions of any Standing Order relating to Private Business be dispensed with.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Hon. Members: Cheat!

Mr. Foot: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing is gained without hearing what is being said.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Lord President addressing you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or is he making a Business Statement to the House? It is not clear to me which is happening.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is a little of both. But the Lord President was making a statement arising out of my ruling, and I think that he should be allowed to finish.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would prefer it, I can say that it is a statement about the business of the House. It is a statement which I began by saying that I did not believe that we could proceed now with the business on the Order Paper, and I was seeking—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had risen on a point of order, but I was under the impression that the Lord President had preceded me on a point of order. I think, therefore, that this is the correct moment to thank you for the consideration which you were—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Tiverton next. I think that we should allow the Lord President to finish what he was saying.

Mr. Foot: If I might continue with my statement, I was not making it on a point of order because I believed that it would have been a bogus point of order. I was rising to comment, Mr. Speaker, on your statement—

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of the Lord President—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not finished yet."] In view of that statement, is not the right hon. Gentleman admitting that the Bill has to go to a Select Committee? That being so, is there any point in his continuing to talk about what he would like to happen, as opposed to what has to happen under the rules of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to that question is that it is customary, when a ruling is made which affects the House and Government business, that an opportunity for a statement follows. I suggest that we hear what the Lord President has to say, and then we can hear another point of view.

Mr. Foot: I was seeking to give the House the very first opportunity to hear the Government's view about how we should proceed, in view of your statement, Mr. Speaker. I was indicating to the House how the House of Commons itself could deal with this problem tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, it will be open to the House to decide—[Interruption.] It will be open to the House to decide this matter not by shouting but by votes. In the course of the debate tomorrow, in order to remove any element of doubt on the subject of hybridity—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no doubt."]—the Government would at Report stage—

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the Lord President again, but I understood that you, Mr. Speaker, had given a ruling about the hybridity of the Bill. Therefore, it is not in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to challenge it now.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member

for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has put it to you in terms that what the Lord President is saying is a challenge to your ruling. There can be no question about whether the rules apply. Will you rule accordingly?

Mr. Speaker: I have already given a ruling to the House, and that ruling stands. But I think that it is only an act of courtesy to listen to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Foot: In a moment I shall finish the sentence on which I was interrupted—

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you rule whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and several others—

Hon. Members: Hear, Hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear the point of order.

Mr. Sedgemore: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I shall try to get it right this time. Will you rule, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and several other Opposition Members to use terms such as those which have been used in the past five minutes, including "Leader of the Reichstag" and "Fascist"—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not behaving with any credit to itself. I was about to say that I wanted to hear the point of order to its end, but I think that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has made his point. The House knows that I deprecate the hurling of abuse across the Chamber. I hope that the Lord President will be allowed to conclude his statement.

Mr. Foot: May I say that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"]—as I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, would be eager to confirm, I have said nothing which is in any sense a challenge to your ruling—

Mr. Goodhew: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall defend myself if necessary. But it is not necessary yet.

Mr. Foot: As I am sure you would be the first to confirm, Mr. Speaker, I have said nothing which is a challenge


to your ruling. I am simply proposing to the House that we should have a motion tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheat!"] I am proposing that we should have a motion tomorrow which can deal—

Hon. Members: Cheat.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It really is disgraceful for hon. Members to shout "Cheat".

Mr. Foot: May I ask—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Lord President is trying to conclude his speech.

Mr. Foot: What I am proposing is that the House of Commons tomorrow should have the opportunity to deal with the consequences of your ruling, Mr. Speaker—the consequences for people in the shipyards and in the aircraft industry in this country. Our recommendation tomorrow, on which the House of Commons itself will be able to pronounce judgment, is that we should be able to proceed with this Bill with utmost speed. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are cheating."] As I was saying when I was interrupted by two bogus points of order—

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough surely that the right hon. Gentleman should challenge your view that there is a hybrid Bill before the House. Even worse is the fact that he is suggesting that those who believe that we should follow the procedure for hybrid Bills should be ridden over by the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will listen to the remainder of the Lord President's speech.

Mr. Foot: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to remove any element of doubt from the subject—

Hon. Members: No! Resign!

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said confirms that he is challenging your ruling. I do not believe there can be anyone in this House who detected an element of doubt in what you ruled.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard no challenge to my ruling. The House has heard my ruling but now the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to put his point of view.

Mr. Foot: As I was saying—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I will take this point of order but I must point out that points of order which are not really points of order hold up the business of the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has a genuine point of order.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that no progress is being made on this matter and that tempers are heated, would you suspend the sitting and reconvene the House when everyone has cooled down?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for my judgment. The House surely can do now what it could do in 10 or 20 minutes' time.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is dealing now with what he thinks or expects will happen tomorrow. In 10 minutes' time there is a meeting of the Committee of Selection. You have said that this Bill is hybrid, and in 10 minutes' time we should be discussing whether we should set up another Committee—this time a Select Committee—to look at this Bill as a result of the ruling you have given.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that it is prima facie a hybrid Bill. Now I want the Lord President to complete his statement.

Mr. Foot: I was trying to tell the House when I was interrupted how the Government believe we should proceed with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Our, out."] What I suggested, which is apparently so objectionable to some hon. Members, was that we should have a full debate on the matter tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. You are cheating."] That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition to me. That debate would arise on a motion which I have already read to the House.
What I was indicating to the House when I was interrupted was that there is no challenge to your ruling, Mr. Speaker—and you have confirmed that. To remove any element of doubt about the state of hybridity—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no doubt."]—we would at the Report stage be willing to introduce the necessary amendment to make the technical change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite had listened a bit earlier they might have learned something. I am suggesting that we debate it tomorrow. If we do, I believe that we shall be able to overcome these technical difficulties and at the same time proceed speedily and get this Bill on to the statute book.
I now come to the business for today. As I said earlier, clearly we cannot make progress with the Bill today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] We have to await the House of Commons decision tomorrow. It would not be convenient to proceed with the Industry (Amendment) Bill, which is also on the Order Paper for today, so I will ask the House to consider today the Second Reading of the Bail Bill [Lords], followed by the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords].
This is the first time in my experience that there has been such an objection to inviting the House of Commons to settle a matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sieg heil!"] That is what we are proposing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"] That is what we are proposing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing at all to be gained by this demonstration.

Mr. Foot: That is what we are proposing. Only those who are afraid of the merits of that debate will fear the debate.

Hon. Members: Sieg heil!

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the events this afternoon have shown that it may have been wiser if my point of order had followed your statement immediately, Mr. Speaker, before the Leader of the House presumed to make his hybrid speech. I am extremely grateful to you for the hours you and your advisers spent honouring the undertaking you gave the House yesterday afternoon. I thank you for the care with which you looked at the objective and ascertainable facts presented to you, and the care with

which you looked at the rulings of your predecessors. What you have confirmed with your ruling is that this is not a matter of a mere technicality as the Leader of the House has suggested.
The hybrid Bill procedure exists to protect the rights of minorities and to secure that equality before the law which you, Mr. Speaker, rightly recommended to Members both of this House and of our sister Assembly in the United States of America when you spoke on behalf of all of us in Westminster Hall this morning.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in what he said. With regard to the second point, I understand the position to be that when I have made the ruling, my part finishes, and the House itself then takes over.

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to you for your ruling. However, I presume that it is in order to put one or two questions on the' Business Statement made by the Leader of the House.
Is the Leader of the House aware that if there is uncertainty in the shipbuilding industry, that is because of the introduction of this Bill? If there has been bungling over the Bill, the bungling is that of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing—as someone who has been posturing round this place for years and years as a lover of the House of Commons—to introduce a motion to get round a Speaker's ruling and to defeat the whole purpose of this House. His right course is either to withdraw the Bill or to treat it as a hybrid Bill, which it has been ruled to be.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that the difficulties in the shipbuilding industry have been caused by this Bill, he can know precious little about shipbuilding. What I have proposed for the House tomorrow is a debate in which we can discuss the matter. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep an open mind until he has heard the case.

Hon. Members: Cheating.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foot: What would really be cheating would be to deny the ship


workers of this country what they have been fighting for over all these years.

Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order, which I believe to be genuine. The Government have announced that they intend to introduce a motion which is designed to alter the procedure of the House during the passage of a Bill. That is wholly inconsistent with the practice and constitution of this country. Will you please, Mr. Speaker, at your leisure, consider this matter and make a ruling before the debate tomorrow whether it is proper and in keeping with our constitution for a procedure of this importance, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), designed to protect the interests of minorities, to be thus altered during the passage of a Bill? This is the vital point. If the procedure is altered at all, it should be altered at another time, when there is no Bill that is being affected by the change of procedure.
I respectfully submit this matter to you, Mr. Speaker, as I believe that it is an important and valid point requiring your adjudication.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course we would certainly be prepared to accept any ruling from you whether the motion which I have proposed is out of order. But as far as I am aware, it is fully in order, and the House of Commons itself can decide the matter. I should like to have your ruling on the subject.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked to give a ruling. I can only say that if the motion is in order, as it appears to be, it is not for me to interfere with either side of the House putting a motion on the Order Paper. The House itself will decide.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Thatcher.

Mrs. Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, we have—

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to get this straight. Are we on points of order, as we appear to have been for some time, or is this now a

debate on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been saying? If it is a debate, some of us want to get in, too. If we are on points of order, let the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition start by saying that, so that we know where we stand.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that after a ruling such as I have given, a short Business Statement was necessary for the House.

Mr. Mellish: Is that what we are on?

Mr. Speaker: The Lord President fought his way through and made a business statement concerning tomorrow, and I have now called the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Thatcher: We have rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, so that we do not have arbitrary government. If the Leader of the House is proposing to set those aside at 24 hours' notice, he is signalling the end of parliamentary democracy and the beginning of arbitrary government. May I ask the Leader of the House to consider this not only as a matter affecting the aircraft and shipbuilding industries but as a matter affecting the whole future of parliamentary democracy, and to think very carefully before he puts down on the Order Paper the motion that he has read out?

Mr. Foot: As you have confirmed, Mr. Speaker, the motion that I have read out is fully in order. The House of Commons itself can make its decision tomorrow. For the right hon. Lady to describe that as an attack on parliamentary democracy is parliamentary absurdity.

Mrs. Thatcher: What the Leader of the House is proposing to do is to make the House the instrument of Government instead of their watchdog.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mellish.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware that much of the indignation that is based on the fact that the Bill is now shown to be a hybrid Bill could be overcome by putting down a small amendment which defines a ship as a ship and a rig as a rig, and that that is what all this stuff and nonsense is about.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tebbit.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House that we shall soon be moving on to the next business.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I have called the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).

Mr. Tebbit: Can either the Lord President or you, Mr. Speaker, say what is now to be the fate of the petition which has been presented by a petitioner to this House, in line with the rights of individuals for the past 500 years, and of those rights which will be overridden if the right hon. Gentleman's motion tomorrow should be passed by the House on its first stage towards an assembly subservient to the Executive?

Mr. Foot: All these matters are open for debate tomorrow. The Government have given the House the earliest possible opportunity to discuss this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheating."] To describe that as an interference with the rights of the House is an absurdity.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that, right or wrong and whether the House should have done something about it or not, it is common—it happens perhaps once a fortnight—for a motion to stand on the Order Paper and to be passed which begins with some such words as
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the procedures and practices of the House…"?
Whether it ought to be or not, the House is accustomed to using exactly this device to suspend its Standing Orders, and that is what is being proposed in this case.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that the procedural motions which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has just described are normally used only to deal with procedures of this House? The difference in this case is that the procedural motion which we are discussing will be used to damage

the interests of private persons outside this House.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether his motion will include in the nationalisation plans that part of the company which the Government have undertaken to an American firm will not be nationalised or will exclude it, thereby doing grave injustice to other private concerns?

Mr. Foot: If the motion which we propose is carried, discussion of the Bill will proceed in the House. It will include what I have already stated and the kind of amendment to which I have referred. I believe that all this heat will very quickly evaporate. [Hon. Members: "No."] Far from interfering with people's individual rights we are doing this in order to give rights to people.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was one of the Ministers responsible when this Bill was first being discussed and that I know that discussions took place on the question of hybridity? The Ministers who were responsible went out of their way to ask advice from ministerial lawyers because we wanted it made clear that we should, in all circumstances, avoid any hybridity.
Is it not clear that there has been an unfortunate error for which my right hon. Friend holds no responsibility? Is it not also clear that workers in the shipyards—I worked in a shipyard for many years myself—are quite aware what a ship is and what an oil rig is? They know that an oil rig is an oil rig and a ship is a ship.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average worker in the shipyards will not understand the niceties and technicalities of a hybrid Bill? Jobs and the future of the industry could be put in jeopardy. If there is a disaster in this industry, the workers will put the full responsibility on the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and his colleagues.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is correct in everything he has said. Perhaps I could refer particularly to what he said about the original Bill and the attempts to discover whether there was any element of hybridity in it. I gather that these matters are not put in writing, but when representations were made at the time, the previous Speaker indicated to the


Ministers responsible that he did not believe that there was any element of hybridity in the Bill. That was the indication, and that has been our belief right up to the incidents of the last day or two. In view of the statement you made today, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "A ruling."]—we had to see what was the right way to proceed. We propose a method of dealing with it which we think is the right one. When the Bill was introduced, it was done so following the indications about hybridity that my hon. Friend has stated.

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for continuing On this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "So you should."] I have done so. I speak as one of the members of Mr. Speaker's Panel who have to take an impartial view.
Is it not a fact that this debate, if it can be called that, started with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill was a hybrid Bill? That was settled. Is it not also a fact that the Leader of the House said that in order to eliminate any doubt we should have a debate tomorrow? It is not in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to decide whether there is any doubt in a ruling from the Chair. I am defending the Chair when I say this. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to demand a debate tomorrow to remove doubt when you, Mr. Speaker, have given a ruling.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House aware that he is to be congratulated today much more upon the skill of his apologists than upon his own deplorable cynicism? Would he be good enough, before the debate he proposes for tomorrow, to let us have a draft of the kind of speech we could have expected from him had he been on this side of the House and the kind of cheat he is proposing to perpetrate had instead been inflicted upon him?

Mr. Foot: I do not think there would be any advantage in descending to the right hon. Gentleman's level, [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I cannot recall, in all the time I have been a Member of this House, that I was ever afraid of a debate. We shall have a debate tomorrow. Why should anybody be afraid of it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The word "cheat" as addressed to a hon. Member or right hon. Member is highly offensive.
I have received notice from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that he wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Peyton: In view of what you have said about the use of the word "cheat", Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it without qualification. I am very pleased to do so. At least we on this side of the House wish to comply with its rules.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am calling the hon. Member for Eastbourne to ascertain whether he wishes to make his application.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member for Eastbourne seeks to pursue his application.

Mr. Gow: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

Mr. Onslow: By way of clarification, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) chose at this moment to seek to catch your eye, would that prevent any other Member of the House from commenting on the curious situation in which we find ourselves?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the points of order in a moment, but I indicate to the House that in any case I shall bring these proceedings to a close within a short while. I shall hear the point of order of the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), as he has sought to catch my eye.

Mr. Fernyhough: You have been here a very long time, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you whether in all the many years you have been a Member of the House you have ever known a Bill to have a Second Reading and 58 sittings in Committee before the Opposition realise that it is a hybrid Bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I know you cherish the good name of the House, to consider the impression


upon people outside, especially those in the shipbuilding industry who have been meeting me today. What will be their impression when they know that an Opposition who are calling constantly for reductions in public expenditure have allowed the House of Commons to waste time and money on a Second Reading and 58 sittings in Committee and have now tried to stop the will of Parliament?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that while he was a Minister in the Department of Industry, discussions took place—this is important—with the Ministry lawyers, who gave the advice that there was no element of hybridity in the Bill. The Leader of the House then said that your predecessor, Mr.Speaker, had given certain advice. If the hon. Member for Walton is right, does it not lie upon the then Secretary of State, or the present one, to accept responsibility for errors in the Department and to resign? If the Leader of the House has made a wrong accusation against your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, it should be justified. They cannot both be right.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was only yesterday that I gave a different ruling. New information was brought to my notice yesterday. The House will recall—it is in Hansard today—that I gave a different ruling yesterday, a ruling which I have had to reverse today in view of the information that has been supplied to me within the past 24 hours. I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: Is it worth recording, Mr. Speaker, that this whole episode of parliamentary mumbo-jumbo during the past hour is set against a background of more than a million and a quarter people on the dole and 20,000 who have come to Parliament today to lobby their Members of Parliament? As the Bill is an attempt to give a great deal more security to some of those who have come to Parliament,

would it not be a good idea for you, Mr. Speaker, to tell those assembled on the Opposition Benches who have been doing all the shouting to go to the Grand Committee Room and tell the assembled unemployed workers what they have been doing today against their interests? That is what should happen in this place today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), but questions on the Business Statement have finished.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, two points of order. First, on behalf of the whole House, will you repudiate the suggestion that questions about the proper order of our proceedings are to be described as mumbo-jumbo or as niceties? In these very matters are we not safeguarding the liberties of Parliament and of free speech, matters that are precisely maintained by the rules of order, which no Labour Member should describe as mumbo-jumbo?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, will you be so kind as to revert to the point on which, with respect, I believe you did not rule, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) asked you whether it was right to change the rules in the middle of the passage of a Bill so that those who are affected by it will have been dealt with in one way in Committee and will be dealt with in another way on Report and Third Reading? I believe you did not rule on that point, Mr. Speaker, and I should be grateful for your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I did not rule on that point because I was concerned with the question of order. As regards whether certain matters are in order, on any item such as that raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) I always like time to give them consideration. If necessary, I shall make a statement tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, your


ruling is retrospective in its effect. You have ruled that the Bill has been a hybrid from the beginning. It is not the lodging of a petition which has made it so. In those circumstances will you give guidance as to the effect of the motion of the Leader of the House if it were carried, as it refers to the subsequent proceedings on the Bill? What about the proceedings in Committee which have already been completed, to which the motion does not refer and which may have been inappropriate proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: The House is its own master in these matters, and the House will decide. All I have to rule, as I have done this afternoon, is that it is prima facie a Hybrid Bill. It is then up to the House, not to me. I merely give the ruling to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield was addressing me.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Before we deal with the motion tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will you rule on whether the motion, if passed, will have the effect, without referring to them, of validating the previous proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider whether there is any cause for me to make a statement, but as I am at present advised, there is not and the motion is in order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Ridley: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that you have given your ruling, surely it is the situation that the Bill is and always has been a hybrid. That means that the proceedings in Committee were inappropriate and that the Bill should have gone to a Select Committee. As in a case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when you rule and the Government automatically move that the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges, the Government should automatically move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee to have an alternative Committee stage in place of the wrongful

Committee stage that we have already had. If the House were to accept such a motion, the Bill could proceed normally to a Select Committee and then into Committee. if the House were to reject such a motion, the Bill would be presumed lost.
Therefore, is it not right that I should submit a manuscript motion to the effect that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee? Any procedures which may take place tomorrow are, of course, null and void compared with the need to deal with this Bill—which is now a hybrid, not a public, Bill—in the proper fashion in which hybrid or private Bills should be dealt with. It seems that the only conceivably correct procedure to adopt would be to move "That the Bill be now referred to a Select Committee".
I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether you will accept such a motion so that the House may proceed to commit the Bill forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept such a motion now. It must appear on the Order Paper if the hon. Gentleman seeks to move such a motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tuck, on a point of order.

Mr. Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if the Bill were hybrid from its inception, is it not right that the House of Commons has many times retrospectively validated something that was previously invalid—for example, the Wireless Telegraphy (Validation of Charges) Act 1954?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for argument for tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Abse, on a point of order.

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Leader of the House made it clear that, whatever may have happened within the particular Department, the Bill was submitted in accordance with the customary and required procedure to Mr. Speaker who, as I understand the position, would certify that it either was or was not a hybrid Bill, having been properly advised.
It would be of considerable assistance in deciding on our attitude to the motion tomorrow to know whether an error made by the former Speaker and his advisers or by the Government had placed the House in considerable difficulty. If it is an error which has emanated not from the Government but from the former Speaker and his advisers, then it is perfectly proper that the House should be able to remedy an error made by its own officers. It would be another matter—I take the point made by the Leader of the Opposition—if the Government were attempting to usurp their position in the way that has apparently erroneously been suggested. Will you tell the House, so that we may know the position, whether this problem has arisen, as it appears to have arisen according to the Leader of the House, through an unfortunate error on the part not of the Government but of the former Speaker and his advisers?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I want to make it clear that my predecessor acted as I would have acted. The Public Bill Office was satisfied in the early stages that this was not a hybrid Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. So was I as late as yesterday afternoon when I made my statement to the House. I have come back today, in the light of other evidence which has come forward within the last few hours, and made another statement.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you gave your ruling, you quite definitely told the House that it was a hybrid Bill. On two occasions since you have used the phrase "a prima facie hybrid Bill". May I ask that the phrase "prima facie" be removed and that we get back to your first ruling that it is indeed a hybrid Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was in my original statement which I read to the House.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for

Pontypool (Mr. Abse), may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether your officers, when deciding whether a Bill is a public or a private Bill, rest on advice from the sponsoring Department? Regarding your ruling yesterday and the earlier preparation of the Bill, did you and your officers rest on the advice of the sponsoring Department?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know how far it is right for me to go into the details. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is the custom for the Department concerned to advise the Public Bill Office. [Interruption.] Order. I hope that there will be no further points of order to get me further involved in this matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to your reply to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the accurate position that neither Mr. Speaker nor the officers of the House are in any way responsible for the drafting of a Government Bill? In this case, the identities of those responsible are actually endorsed on the Bill: Mr. Secretary Varley, the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Reginald Prentice, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Gregor Mackenzie and Mr. Gerald Kaufman. Is the answer that it is not for Mr. Speaker or for those who advise him to advise Ministers of the Crown how they should draft a Bill competently? That is the function of the Ministers of the Crown. That is the function of the Government. It is not the function of officers or servants of the House of Commons. Therefore, is it not only wrong but unjust to endeavour to attribute incompetence within a Government Department to lack of diligence in either your predecessor or those who serve us as officers of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. There is no reflection at all upon my predecessor. I am sure that both sides of the House realise that. The normal process was followed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He made a mistake."] Order. The House might as well say that I made a mistake yesterday afternoon when I gave a ruling. I do not think that anything further is gained by this scrag end to our proceedings. I hope that we can now move on to the next business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mike Thomas, on a point of order.

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this latter point which has been raised a blue herring? Is not the situation that it is the duty of Ministers and those working with them to prepare Bills and submit them to Parliament and that their civil servants are their servants, but that the people who work in the Public Bill Office are the servants of the House and of yourself? The distinctions between drafting a Bill and certifying whether it be hybrid or not are quite different and separate. We should not seek to blame my right hon. and hon. Friends or their civil servants in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not seeking to blame anyone at all. All I want to do is to get to the next business. I call Mr. Ennals for the next business.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Lawson: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. This House lives by precedent. Can you tell us what precedent there is for a proposal such as that made by the Leader of the House following a ruling such as you made this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: I have looked into the question of precedent. There is no precedent for a Speaker giving a ruling such as I have given at this stage of a Bill. That is the advice that I have been given. Therefore, we are in an unprecedented area in that regard.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we could tidy up what you described as "this scrag end to our proceedings" by clearing up matters which still remain in doubt. I hope that you will continue to accept points of order as long as you are satisfied that they are genuine.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were to put down a motion to

the effect that this Bill be treated as a hybrid Bill is normally treated—if he did, many of us might feel inclined to support him, if the Government would not—would such a motion take precedence over any motion that the Leader of the House might put down to alter the rules in his favour?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is "No". It does not take precedence over the Government's business for the day.

Mr. Carlisle: On a totally different point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, you cut fairly short questions to the Leader of the House on his Business Statement. May I therefore ask you, as the custodian of the rights and interests of Back Benchers, whether it is seriously being suggested that we proceed today with the debate on two Government Bills on notice given at 3.30 p.m. in the House by the Leader of the House? Notification was given on the Order Paper, but the Leader of the House chose to make a Business Statement at 3.30 p.m. saying what the business would be. Would it not be right in the circumstances, as the Leader of the House finds himself in difficulty, that the right hon. Gentleman should move instead that the House should adjourn today and that this matter should be taken at an appropriate time after appropriate consideration?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows that that is not a point for me.

Mr. Channon: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should get right what you have ruled. I understand that the Government are to move a motion tomorrow. You have ruled that the Bill is hybrid.

Mr. Heffer: Prima facie.

Mr. Channon: Is not the situation in relation to all prima facie hybrid Bills that it is open to any hon. Member to put down a motion of the kind suggested by the Leader of the House, or is the option reserved to the Government? Do such motions take precedence over Orders of the Day, or is it a fact that in all other cases all hybrid Bills will proceed normally along their normal path? Can anyone put down a motion such as the right hon. Gentleman is to table? If so, what are the precedents?

Mr. Speaker: It is open to any hon. Member to put a motion on the Order Paper. The chances of its getting called vary.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider the point that has been made? In circumstances which I can understand the Government must very much regret, is it right to ask the House, even though, it is admitted, the business has been notified on the Order Paper, suddenly and unexpectedly to consider these important measures? Would it not be right, in the circumstances, for the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Foot: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you had brought questions to me to an end, but if I am in order in doing so, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I fully understand that it would have been advantageous if we could have given longer notice of the Bills to be taken on Second Reading today. However, there has been considerable discussion on both these Bills in another place. Notice was given on the Order Paper this morning of the intention to take them today. The business was not announced merely at the time that I made my statement. It is necessary for us to proceed with the business of the Government and the legislation that we wish to get through. There is wide support for the two Bills that we are to discuss today. They have passed through another place, and it is legitimate to ask the House of Commons to use the time that has become available because of the different circumstances to debate these measures today.

BILL PRESENTED

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Secretary Ennals, supported by Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Stanley Orme, and Mr. Eric Deakins, presented a Bill to amend paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 as respects the earnings of the parent in a one-parent family, and paragraph 24 of that Schedule as respects certain social security and other allowances for children: And the same was read the

First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave notice to your Secretary that I wished to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I gave the hon. Member an opportunity to do that a long time ago. I shall not stop him now, but I thought that I had invited him to put his case earlier.

Mr. Gow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Government to follow the rules of the House and the ruling of Mr. Speaker that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is prima facie a hybrid Bill.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having given you notice before that I intended to move the Adjournment of the House, but it was not possible to anticipate that the Lord President of the Council, of all people, would cheat the rules of the House in this way.
I have to satisfy three criteria. The first is that this is a specific matter, and that it most certainly is, because it is within the hearing of us all that the Lord President has made this statement. Secondly, I have to satisfy you that it is an important matter. What could be more important than overriding the rights of Back Benchers of this House, and not least when it comes from the Lord President of the Council himself?
But there is one issue that is even more important than the overriding of the interests of Back Benchers, and that is the overriding of the interests of the citizens of this country, one of whom has deposited a petition in the bag behind the Chair. For the Government to seek in this way and at this time to override the interests and rights of the British people, safeguarded and enshrined in Acts of Parliament, is a matter of the greatest importance.
The last test that I have to satisfy is one of urgency. The Lord President of the Council has told the House that we are to discuss and debate this matter tomorrow, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked the Leader of the House what he would have said if he had been on this side of the House and if my right hon. Friend had made this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman would have demanded, as we on this side of the House now demand, that it is too late to discuss a matter of this importance tomorrow, and we require and ask that it be debated today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Government to follow the rules of the House and the ruling of Mr. Speaker that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is prima facie a hybrid Bill.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Medicines (Specified Articles and Substances) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

TUBERCULOSIS VISITORS (HEALTH AND CHEST CLINICS)

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for improving the status of tuberculosis visitors working within health and chest clinics; and for connected purposes.
Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to wait until the Chamber clears a little before I present my Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I ask right hon. and hon. Members, if they are leaving the Chamber, to do so quietly because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree seeks to address the House.

Mr. Steen: One of the important tasks of the House, as you have heard this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to champion the rights of the individual and to protect minority groups from being trampled on by the big battalions. I take it that no hon. Member will disagree with that. If that is the case, how does one reconcile that basic principle with the discrimination that is currently practised against the tuberculosis visitor if she does not possess a health visitor's certificate?
There are 140 tuberculosis visitors. Most are experienced State registered nurses usually with other qualifications as well, such as State certified midwives, certificates in tropical diseases and qualifications of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. However, fewer than six of those tuberculosis visitors hold a health visitor certificate.
The tuberculosis visitor's job is to detect and monitor and help those who have tuberculosis. The visitors work from chest clinics and are part of the National Health Service. Chest physicians tell me that they are invaluable and indispensable and play an important part in the life and health of the country.
The House may be surprised to learn that the number of tuberculosis cases in Great Britain is starting to rise again. In 1975 there were 12,323 outbreaks. That is why it is so repugnant that the Government have passively accepted Halsbury's odious distinction between the tuberculosis visitor with the health visitor certificate and the tuberculosis visitor without it. If a nurse has the health visitor certificate, her status is enhanced


and she is raised in pay and pension rights to the equivalent of Ward Sister 1. If she does not have the health visitor certificate, she is demoted to the bottom rung of the nursing ladder, to staff nurse. Whereas in 1970 the tuberculosis visitor without the health visitor certificate was on an intermediate scale between staff nurse and sister earning £180 less than the tuberculosis visitor with the certificate, in 1975 Halsbury shot up the differential to £1,248 while downgrading those without the certificate. If the tuberculosis visitor has the health visitor certificate, not only is she paid more, and gets a higher pension, but she is three grades higher than her colleague doing identical work in the same office, in the same area, who takes on the same responsibilities. If the tuberculosis visitor has no health visitor certificate she is on the same rung as the nurse who has just qualified. In fact, she is back to where she started 20 or 30 years ago.
Everyone is agreed that Lord Halsbury got it badly wrong and that the tuberculosis visitor without the health visitor certificate should be upgraded, although not necessarily to the same level as those with the certificate, because everyone recognises that the health visitor certificate—an eight-month course—is a valuable and additional training; but she should at least be placed on the same band as other community nurses such as the district nurse and the district midwife. In this way the distinction between those tuberculosis visitors with the health visitor certificate and those without it would be narrowed, their status restored and the financial differential reduced to £300.
I am glad to say that the Edmonton chest clinic has found a way around this anomalous situation. Since January 1976 it has got rid of its tuberculosis visitors. Instead, the two tuberculosis visitors without the certificate it employs have been upgraded to district nurses. But they are actually carrying out identical work although with a few extra jobs thrown in for good measure. Their salary scale now goes up to £3,552, but a few miles away, at the health centre at Hackney, there are still tuberculosis visitors doing identical work whose salary scale goes up only to £2,646. I believe that that is totally wrong.
What is so mean and hurtful is that the Department of Health obviously thinks that it can get away with this, because it takes the view that nurses will not take industrial action as they are not part of one of the strong unions. Although NALGO has expressed support and concern, it is odd that the other heavyweight unions do not appear to have the interest or gallantry to take up this cause and to resist the fundamentally wrong and unacceptable principle of actually downgrading a group of workers and reducing both their status and their salary and pension rights.
Since I introduced a previous Bill on 27th April, dealing with the one other anomalous group who have been downgraded—the school nurses without the health visitors certificate—hon. Members will be surprised to learn that I have received but one letter from the Department of Health on the subject and that was yesterday from the Minister of State regretting that he was unable to attend the House this afternoon to listen to my Bill. I thank him for that courtesy. It was good of him to let me know this, and I will excuse his absence if he will tell me what he is doing to put this matter right.
I take it that the Minister is not contending that the tuberculosis visitors without the certificate are not doing their job properly. I presume that he is satisfied that the 100,000 people who have contracted tuberculosis in the last 10 years received proper treatment. I also presume that he is not disregarding 30 or 40 years' experience in nursing and saying that it is less relevant than an eight-month training certificate. If that is the case, why is he remaining silent? Is he just plainly indifferent to the plight of these ladies? Does he realise that a good number of them, in the course of their work, have caught tuberculosis themselves and have suffered considerably?
I presume that his officials have exploded the myth that the health visitor certificate does not mean that a tuberculosis visitor does any different work when she is acting as a tuberculosis visitor. All it means is that a nurse with it is eligible to take on other work. It is also fair to say that those tuberculosis visitors, who have had a lifetime of experience tend to act as mentors to those young


girls, often with the health visitor certificate, who have recently joined the service.
Last July, at Question Time, the Minister acknowledged there was an anomalous situation and that it was causing a great deal of unrest. He said that he would review the matter. It has also been discussed by the Whitley Council which is responsible for assessing the salary and status of nurses. The Staff Side asked for the matter to go to arbitration. The Management Side has repeatedly turned down that request. Who are the Management Side of the Whitley Council? They are the Government in sheep's clothing.
How can this Government, so full of high principles and lofty words, reject the pleas of 140 devoted nurses who have given a lifetime of service to this country? How can a Government committed to the spirit and principles of equal opportunity, and the rights of each individual, turn a blind eye to the plight of the tuberculosis visitors?
My Bill will put right this deep injustice. So long as it continues it should deeply embarrass each one of us on all sides of the House. We are all collectively responsible and we must all be deeply ashamed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Fred Silvester, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Frederick Willey, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. William Molloy.

TUBERCULOSIS VISITORS (HEALTH AND CHEST CLINICS)

Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for improving the status of tuberculosis visitors working within health and chest clinics; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Committee read.

Committee tomorrow.

BAIL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.9 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has come to us having been considered in another place. Although this will be an important debate I have some suspicion that whatever we say or do in this debate will not form the headlines about parliamentary proceedings tomorrow. However, this is an important measure, giving effect to a number of the recommendations of the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, set up in 1971, whose report was published in 1974.
Before dealing with the detailed provisions, perhaps I might sketch a little of the background, because this provides a useful setting in which to place the measure that we propose. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality of bail decisions by setting out more clearly than hitherto the questions to which the courts should address their minds when taking these important decisions, and by improving the procedure, particularly by the creation of a presumption in favour of the grant of bail, to ensure that these matters are considered at the right time.
There has been some misunderstanding of the Bill's objectives. For example, it has been represented as being merely an attempt to relieve the burden on prisons. There certainly is a burden on the prisons. About 50,000 people a year are remanded in custody before trial—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I wish to raise through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question whether we can properly now proceed with this Bill. It is, of course, correct that the Bill was named on the Order Paper this morning, but it will be well understood by you, after your many years in the House, that many of the interests involved in the Bill, not least the police service, in which, as you know, I declare an interest, the legal profession and many others, had expected to be able to be here when the Bail Bill

came before the House in order to advise us on our speeches.
I have made it my business to try to make contact with those members of the police service who wish to give advice through me to the House in respect of the Bill. Partly because it is engaged in trying to protect this House from the violence which threatens it from without but mainly because it has been denied any notice and any opportunity due to the preceding procedural difficulties, the police service, among others, is denied the opportunity today of approaching hon. Members in order to put its views on this important matter affecting crime, the law and the police service of Britain.
I appeal to you, Sir, to protect the rights of the police service, the men and women in it and all that they mean, by not allowing the Bill to be taken for its Second Reading till those important minorities have been given their right as free citizens to come to Members of Parliament and ensure that their point of view is put.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order—

Mr. David Weitzman: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. May I deal with one point of order at a time? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is well aware that the Chair has no control over what is put on the Order Paper or not put on the Order Paper—and this is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether there be merit in what the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has said, the matter was already raised with Mr. Speaker and dealt with by him earlier today.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, I return to my point of order because it would be wrong of me to take up a point of argument here. Mr. Speaker did not in fact rule on this matter. There was discussion as to whether the Bail Bill should proceed or not and the Leader of the House maintained that it should. The point that I am putting to you, Sir, is simply one of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member may well have a point which he can raise during the debate, but it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. John: rose—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one moment—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What is the hon. Member doing then?

Mr. Griffiths: I accept your ruling—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Come on. It is not dramatic enough.

Mr. Griffiths: I simply wish to record this, that in the circumstances in which I find myself it is wholly impossible for the police service to be heard—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: He has not got his brief.

Mr. Griffiths: This situation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member should be fortunate enough to catch my eye, he can make such observations as he may feel fit.

Mr. John: Before I was interrupted, I was seeking to explain the purpose of the Bill. Let me just retail some of the history, since it is germane to this matter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. John: If the hon. Member could contain himself within the Chamber for just a little longer, he would hear—

Mr. Griffiths: Reichstag.

Mr. John: If the hon. Member would only listen to some of the debate, instead of coming in, immediately making his points of order and precipitately leaving again—[Interruption.]

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who has just stormed from the Chamber, to refer from behind the Bar to this Chamber as a "Reichstag" and to the Minister of State as "Mussolini"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there were any contribution from behind the Bar I would, of course, not be able to hear it.

Mr. John: Then the advantage was entirely yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was explaining that the working party reported as long ago as 1974. After the report was published observations were invited from all interested parties. Despite the intemperate outburst of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) this is not a party matter at all. This Bill has been the wish of both parties. It was under the Conservative Government that the working party was set up. It was the wish of all parties that all interested parties' observations should be invited, and that has been done. Indeed, the Bill has already gone through another place, at which time all interested parties again had ample opportunity to make their submissions, to make their points of view known and to speak to them. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds does not know the main outline of the Bill by now or the gravamen of the complaints by any interested parties, that is not a matter for the Government but a matter for the hon. Member himself, to decide whether he is diligent enough in equipping himself to make and answer points.
I was saying that there certainly is a burden on the prisons. About 50,000 people a year are remanded in custody before trial. Despite the steps which both the previous Administration and ours have taken to provide more court facilities, some of those remanded in custody have to wait weeks or months before they come to trial. It could be said that on economic grounds alone the reduction in the remand population is highly desirable, but although that is important, and although we hope that the Bill will improve the position, that is not our primary object.
Our primary object is to improve the quality of decisions on bail so that we can, to use the words of the report of the working party,
enable courts to release more prisoners on bail without significantly adding to the burden of the police or diminishing the protection afforded to the public by a remand in custody".
It is not the Government's intention that the prisons should be relieved at all costs. There are often compelling reasons for a remand in custody for someone charged with an offence, and the Bill sets out those reasons in Schedule 1.
We also recognise that, because we are forecasting future conduct, it is impossible in this field to achieve absolute certainty. Inevitably, some of the people who are remanded in custody will be acquitted, although this is only a small proportion of the total—about 3,000 out of 50,000. Inevitably also some of those remanded in custody for trial or remanded after conviction in custody for reports will not receive custodial sentences.
That does not necessarily demonstrate that a prior—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. John: If I might finish this point, I will give way, but the continuity of my speech has already been disrupted by points of order.
What I have said does not necessarily demonstrate that the refusal to give bail on a previous occasion was wrong, since during the trial material facts might have arisen which were not available when the remand was made.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend said that 2,000 people in 1974 who were remanded in custody were subsequently found not guilty. He did not go on to say that 29,000, well over 50 per cent., of those remanded in custody were subsequently given a non-custodial sentence, which suggests that they should not have been in prison in the first place.

Mr. John: I thought that I said that some of the people had received non-custodial sentences. The figures are much as my hon. Friend described.
The point I make is that the subsequent fact that they receive non-custodial sentences does not of itself make wrong the initial decision to remand in custody. There is much rationalisation after the event when looking at figures of that kind.
This country's record for granting bail compares favourably with that of most other Western European countries. Although we have no reason to be ashamed of our record there is still room for improvement. I must stress that a Bill can only go part of the way, because the practice of the courts and others concerned with the judicial process, including the police, are important.
The Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts made a number of recommendations for administrative changes which did not involve legislation and which the Home Office recommended to the courts in a circular issued in October 1975. The Bill restates the practices of many of the courts. For example, many courts have presumed that bail should be granted and they have taken decisions accordingly. We feel that it is right and valuable to state these general principles in statutory form.
In introducing a measure of this kind I am conscious that the Government are in a dilemma. Those who are devoted to penal reform say that we are not moving fast enough or going far enough and that we should strengthen the provisions so as almost to force courts to grant bail. There are others who feel that legislation of this kind deprives courts of their discretion, and that by fettering them by such legislation we do more harm than good. We must steer a middle course between those extreme views.
The Bill is not a hasty measure. It has not been embarked upon without full consideration. The working party was set up following recommendations made by the Magistrates' Association to the Home Office in June 1971. The working party included a stipendiary magistrate, a circuit judge with experience as a stipendiary magistrate, a distinguished academic who had been a lay magistrate, three justices' clerks and representatives of the police. Its report was published in the spring of 1974 and it has subsequently received widespread support. The comments on the report have been carefully considered, and on virtually every point we have accepted everything that the working party said. Despite the fact that some hon. Members have complained that the Bill has been brought to the House somewhat precipitately, consideration of the whole of the Bill has been careful, and decisions have been taken on the best possible advice.
I shall now briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with definitions. I draw the atttention of the House in particular to the definition of the phrase "bail in criminal proceedings" in Clause 1. This means bail grantable in or in connection with


proceedings for an offence to a person who is accused or convicted of the offence, or bail grantable in connection with an offence to a person who is under arrest for the offence or for whose arrest for the offence a warrant endorsed for bail is being issued.
The Bill is not concerned with bail granted in connection with, for example, matrimonial proceedings, where a person is granted bail after being arrested for non-payment of maintenance money, The importance of this is that the offence created later in the Bill, of failing to appear at the time and place appointed, applies only to criminal proceedings and will not extend to the other proceedings of the kind to which I have referred.
Clause 3 changes fundamentally the nature of bail and establishes a new framework for the granting of bail in criminal proceedings. At present, a person who is granted bail is required to enter into an undertaking, or recognisance, to pay a sum of money if he fails to appear at the time and place required. Clause 3 abolishes, in relation to criminal proceedings, the concept of personal recognisances of defendants and provides in its place that a person who is granted bail in criminal proceedings is under a duty to surrender himself at the time and place appointed for his trial. That duty is to be enforceable in accordance with Clause 6, which creates a new offence of failing without reasonable causes to surrender to custody. Clause 3(5) confers a power, hitherto available only to the High Court and the Crown court, to require a person who is considered unlikely to remain in Great Britain till the time appointed for him to surrender, to give security for his later appearance. With the various international bodies to which we now accede and the freer movement of people, the importance of that measure can be understood.
I now come to the focal point of the whole Bill—Clause 4, which creates a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to accused persons. Subsection (1) states specifically that a person accused of an offence shall be granted bail unless he falls within one or other of the exceptions set out in Schedule 1. The schedule sets out the circumstances in which the accused need not be granted

bail—for example, if the court is satisfied, on present wording, that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail, would fail to surrender at the time and place appointed, commit an offence whilst on bail interfere with witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. In addition, the court need not grant him bail if it is satisfied that he should remain in custody for his own protection, or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare.
There are two other obvious but necessary exceptions—where the court is satisfied that it has not been practicable in the time available since the proceedings were instituted to obtain sufficient information on which to base a decision or where the accused is already in custody serving a sentence.
The wording as it stands points to an "unacceptable risk". That was the amendment which was introduced by the other place. The Government's view is that the original wording "it is probable that" is preferable to the wording inserted by the Lords. It will, therefore, be our intention to introduce in Committee a reversion to the words "it is probable that" but with the significant addition that, in paragraph 7 of the schedule, the other part of the amendment introduced by a noble Lord, setting out in more detail certain criteria, will be suitably adapted by the Government to meet the new circumstances and the new wording.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is it the Government's intention to introduce into Schedule 1(1) words that will have the effect that the court will have to be satisfied that it is probable that a person will fail to surrender to custody and all the other conditions?

Mr. John: That is the intention. I shall listen closely to the debate but at the moment, having read the proceedings in another place, I have not been persuaded that the substitution of the words "unacceptable risk" meets the particular point.
The working party considered that a corollary to creating a presumption in favour of bail was that a court should be required to give reasons when overriding the presumption. Accordingly, Clause 5 provides that where a court


withholds bail or grants bail subject to conditions it shall give its reasons for doing so.
This provision should be valuable in two ways. It should help to ensure that magistrates and judges address themselves to the right issues, and it will enable a defendant who is refused bail or granted bail with onerous conditions, and who wishes to make an application for bail to another court, to know what objections have to be met. It should also enable the court considering the further application to know what was in the minds of those who refused bail and should lead to greater consistency in decisions. Clause 5 also requires a record to be kept of the terms on which bail is granted and the defendant to be given a copy if he asks for one.
Clause 6 makes it an offence for a person who has been released on bail to fail without reasonable cause to surrender himself at the time and place required. This new offence replaces the existing personal recognisance system as the sanction against a person who absconds. The working party, in recommending the creation of this offence, considered that not only would it provide a greater deterrent against absconding than the largely ineffectual personal recognisance system but it would also encourage courts to grant bail more often in marginal cases. The Government do not accept the view expressed in another place that there should be no sanctions at all against absconding, because we believe that this would be likely to have the entirely contary effect of increasing custodial remands. The provisions about the offence are so designed that the offence of absconding can be dealt with at the same time as the main offence. There was clearly some anxiety in the other place about how and when it would be dealt with.
Clause 7 recites the liability to arrest for absconding or for breach of bail conditions and is largely procedural.
Clause 8 is an important clause, because it contains for the first time in a statute the factors which should be taken into account in considering the suitability of a potential surety. In the past this has been a matter of some doubt and has led to persons being wrongly rejected as sureties. The clause also makes it clear that the final decision on the suitability of

a surety is a matter for the court and not the police. Provision is also made for the first time for sureties who are resident in Scotland to be able to enter into their recognisance before the Scottish police rather than as at present having to travel into England for the purpose. The other point that the working party made was that sureties should not be required as a matter of course.
Clause 9, which creates a specific offence of agreeing to indemnify sureties in criminal proceedings, is one step on the way to reforming the law of conspiracy. It is already an offence under the common law of conspiracy to indemnify a surety, and this clause is included to replace the common law on this point. We agree with the working party that it is essential to retain this offence, since otherwise we would be in some danger of developing the "bail bond" system current in the United States of America. I think that not only we in this country but many people in the United States itself would consider such a development highly undesirable.
Clause 10 extends existing law by allowing coroners to grant bail to a person charged by a coroner's inquisition with murder, as well as to a person charged with manslaughter or infanticide. The Government have already indicated their intention of altering the existing law requiring coroners to commit for trial persons who have been named by a jury as responsible for a death, where the verdict is one of homicide. Such legislation will be introduced in due course. However, until then it is necessary to keep the law on the granting of bail by coroners in line with the general law, and in particular to ensure that a person charged is at no disadvantage through being committed by a coroner's inquisition.
The purpose of Clause 11 is to ensure that an unrepresented defendant who is in danger of being remanded in custody shall be granted legal aid for bail purposes on his second appearance, if he is not legally represented but wishes to be. The clause has to be read together with the Legal Aid Act 1974, which it amends in this respect. It is designed as a safety net rather than as an operative provision. The defendant would often have been represented on his first appearance by a solicitor engaged privately, a solicitor


he had obtained on legal aid whilst in custody after arrest, or a duty solicitor at the 45 courts—including now most of the larger ones—where duty solicitors are available. If not, he would ordinarily have applied for and obtained legal aid whilst in custody between his first and second appearance. If, however, he has still failed to obtain representation, but desires to have it, and does not have sufficient means to pay for it himself, the provision requires the court to grant legal aid on his second appearance.
Clauses 12 and 13 are procedural. I referred to Schedule 1 when speaking about Clause 4. Schedule 2—consequential and other amendments—is substantial merely because of the antiquity of bail procedures.
The details of the Bill will be considered in Committee. I hope that this introduction has been helpful. The two main changes made by the Bill are in Clauses 4 and 5, which are both significant. They are likely to be effective and to bring the bail procedures into accord with modem thinking on the matter.
I have already dealt with the question of unacceptable risk. The other proposal which was put forward in another place, and which the Government accepted in principle, was that special provision should be made for cases where the accused is charged with an offence not punishable with imprisonment. It would be unusual for a defendant to be remanded in custody in such circumstances, either before or after conviction. It was no doubt for this reason that the working party made no recommendation for a specific provision. Nevertheless, it is true that the Bill as it stands would allow such a person to be remanded in custody, if one or more of the criteria set out in Schedule 1 were met.
The Government agreed in principle that a person should not be remanded in custody where the offence was not punishable with imprisonment, except in two circumstances. One of these is where it is necessary to remand him in custody for his own protection or, if a minor, for his own welfare—for example, if he is apparently mentally unbalanced or shows suicidal tendencies. The second case is where he has failed to appear when bailed on a previous occasion and therefore the probability of his failing to

appear again unless remanded in custody is raised from a probability to a virtual certainty. Otherwise, the court would sometimes be obliged in the one case to turn a person loose when he was obviously likely to do himself or others an injury, or in the other case to allow him to get away with wilful defiance of the court's authority. But these would be exceptional cases.
The other concern expressed in another place was on the question of extending the presumption in favour of the granting of bail to cover persons remanded in custody for inquiries after conviction but before sentence. Most of the remands by magistrates' courts are under Section 14(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952
for the purpose of enabling inquiries to be made or of determining the most suitable method of dealing with the case".
Some such remands are, however, specifically for medical reports under Section 26 of the same Act, where the court is satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged
but is of opinion that an inquiry ought to be made into his physical or mental condition before the method of dealing with him is determined".
The Crown court may also adjourn a case for inquries under its inherent powers, in which event it may either commit the defendant in custody or use the powers in Section 13(4) of the Courts Act 1971 to grant him bail. In 1974, about 12,500 persons were remanded in custody for inquiries, mostly under Section 14 of the 1952 Act. Only 2,782 were remanded under Section 26. About half this total received a custodial sentence, and another 12 per cent. were made subject to a hospital or guardianship order. Those remands arose mainly because of the requirements in Sections 19 and 20 of the Powers in Criminal Courts Act 1973, that the court, before sentencing a person under 21 to imprisonment, or imposing a first prison sentence on anyone,
shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition. Courts were advised by circular in 1971 that only in rare circumstances should a young adult receive a custodial or supervisory sentence without the court


considering a report of the kind I have outlined.
It will be seen from these figures that a substantial proportion of defendants do not ultimately receive a custodial sentence or enter an institution for in-patient treatment. Various reasons have been adduced for this. One suggestion put forward by Mrs. Dell in an article in the New Law Journal for 1st April is that
a remand in custody is the simplest and most convenient as well as the traditional, way of obtaining reports".
Others have suggested that some courts use this to give an offender a taste of prison and thus deter him from committing further offences. A third possibility is that in some areas, at any rate, it is not possible to obtain a report on a person remanded on bail within a reasonable time, because of pressure on hospital facilities for out-patients. We have tried to meet the last difficulty in part by providing facilities for out-patient examination at certain prisons, but of course there are sometimes problems of travel. Lastly, and perhaps most obviously, the court may intend—and the defendant may know that the court intends—to pass a custodial sentence unless something in the report reveals a good reason why it should not do so, and in the event that the report reveals such a reason.
Since we are here concerned with persons who have been found to have committed an offence, there is not as strong a presumption in favour of the grant of bail to them as there is with purely accused persons. Nevertheless, the Government accept that there should be a presumption. The question is, in what circumstances should the presumption be overridden?
I do not think it is in dispute that where bail may be refused to an accused, it may also be refused to a person who has been convicted. The question is, what further action, if any, is necessary.
In this context, I should like to refer to the Report on Young Adult Offenders. It disapproved of the practice, in so far as it exists, of remanding in custody to give a defendant a taste of prison, on the ground that the courts should not seek to achieve such an end in a covert way.

On the other hand, it expressed some sympathy with the view that it may be
inhumane to release an offender into the community and subsequently to take his liberty away
though it thought that the prospect of a custodial sentence should be thought of merely as one important factor to weigh in the balance against any other considerations. As regards psychiatric reports, it did not consider that the need for a psychiatric report justifies a remand in custody where bail would otherwise be granted, but mentioned that there were complaints that psychiatrists outside the prison service take longer to prepare their reports and acknowledged that courts should be able to obtain reports at reasonably short notice. That is being done not merely for the convenience of the courts, and I am sure that the Opposition will also consider the point about the length of time in which a charge hangs over a person, with the consequent disruption of his life and well-being.
I will state the Government's general conclusion. First, we agree that a presumption in favour of bail should apply to persons remanded for inquiries after conviction but before sentence. Secondly, bail need not be granted where it would not be granted to an accused person. The criteria are set out in the Bill. Thirdly, we think that it need not be granted where the court is able to say that it is probable that it will impose a custodial sentence unless the report indicates the contrary.
Fourthly, we think that it need not be granted where it appears to the court that it would otherwise be impracticable to obtain the report. We recognise that this does not go as far as some would like, but we have to have regard to the practicalities of the situation. I hope that all hon. Gentlemen who wish to take part in the debate will recognise that this is an honest attempt to meet the needs of society and also the needs of those who are accused of offences and who do not subsequently receive custodial sentences.
Inevitably, this is a technical Bill, but I wish to emphasise that we are dealing here with often conflicting but necessary matters which must be reconciled in the interests of the protection of society and the liberty of the individual.
This House has a long and honourable record in resolving these two problems—[Interruption.] I say that despite the mutterings of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who has now returned to us having failed to hear what I have said in the intervening period about steps taken to invite the views of the police, among others, on these matters. I repeat that this House has an honourable record in resolving those twin criteria. I believe that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, we shall add a further chapter to that honourable record.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I am sure that the House will agree that this Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation of its kind which the House is likely to consider for many a year. Its provisions aim at improving the quality of the administration of justice and will affect an untold number of people who may be charged with criminal offences and who, as a consequence, might be exposed to the risk of finding themselves deprived of their liberty if it were not for the change in the presumption which this Bill introduces.
The Bill deserves, and indeed demands, the most careful and thoughtful consideration by this House. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that it is a great shame that this Bill should come before the House today when our affairs have been overshadowed and overtaken by events so recently discussed. For the first time I slightly envy Ministers who are able to look at briefs prepared for them by departmental officials. I hope that when these discussions are read outside the House, it will be recognised that, although we shall try to do our best to deal with these provisions as sensibly and as firmly as we can, we have been taken by surprise because this debate is being held at a time when few of us expected to have to deal with these matters.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend, in his mild way, has underlined a point that I sought to make, perhaps a little less mildly, earlier. Will he not accept from me that the official Opposition have a duty to this House to complain to the Government when events make it impossible for large

numbers of people outside the House to make representations to their Members of Parliament? We surely must complain when those people are disabled by the Government's action from being able to see their parliamentary representatives and to put forward their views on this important Bill.

Mr. Gardner: I accept all of that. I understand all too well—and I hope that they will be understood outside the House—the difficulties in which we are all placed by the suddenness with which we have had to deal with this Bill.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the hon. and learned Member will accept that proposition from his hon. Friend, will he accept from me that this Bill would have been debated in a Second Reading Committee in the Session before last if the official Opposition had permitted it to go into that Committee? It would also have been debated earlier in this Session if the Opposition had so agreed. We have had two years to receive representations about the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be prepared for it.

Mr. Gardner: I was anxious not to be driven off the serious points in this Bill. I wanted to make—and I think I made it with justification—a complaint about the fact that we suddenly find ourselves having to debate a piece of legislation of such importance at such short notice. Of course the Bill came out in March; we all know that. But we have not been reading this Bill and nothing else but this Bill since then. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is absolutely right when he says that the public need the opportunity to approach their Members to put their views so that they may be reflected in this debate. Our constituents have been denied this opportunity. My hon. Friend said that I put the point mildly. I did so for the purpose of avoiding this kind of argument in the middle of an important debate. Perhaps I may get on with the points that I was trying to make.
There is no doubt that over many years hon. Members have seen the need for a Bill that contains provisions of the kind contained in this Bill, which seek—I do not say that they necessarily


achieve their end—to deal with the intractable problem of bail. It is a problem that will by no means be extinguished, although we hope that it will in some measure be diminished, by the Bill's provisions. The Society of Conservative Lawyers, Justice, the Criminal Bar Association and the Home Office working party have all been at one in trying to reach conclusions that would be helpful in dealing with this issue.
In looking up an old diary I saw that it is almost eight years to the day that I was appointed as chairman of a committee of Justice that had among its terms of reference a consideration of the problem of bail. That committee reached a number of conclusions as a result of many weeks of deliberation. We made a number of unanimous recommendations, which the Government of the day introduced into the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. That Act provided that bail should not be refused except on one or more specified grounds, and that if it were refused, the reasons for the refusal should be made known to the defendant. The provisions of the 1967 Act, however, applied only to people who had committed what might be described as lesser offences. It is right to say that as a result of this Act, remands in custody fell from under 40 per cent. in 1962 to 15 per cent. in 1974.
Although I agree with the Minister that our record in respect of the number of successful applications for bail is a good one—we apparently have the lowest number of people remanded in prison awaiting trial of any country in Europe, if not in the West—the fact remains that in 1974 almost 65,000 people were re-remanded in custody and of that number more than 2,000 were later found not guilty and 29,000 were given non-custodial sentences. Those figures, stated in that way, can easily be misunderstood. It is true, and I believe it is a proposition to which we would all subscribe, that a person who has been tried for a criminal offence and found not guilty should, in a perfect world, not have been subjected to imprisonment before his trial.
There are some who say that someone who has been found guilty at his trial should not have been put into prison before that trial and have had an application for bail refused. I do not support

that view. Indeed, in many cases when a person is not given bail and is later found guilty the court decides that his case has circumstances which enable it to pass a non-custodial sentence. One of the circumstances frequently taken into account by the court is the fact that that person has been imprisoned and has had a taste of imprisonment before the conclusion of his trial.
We accept the introduction of a statutory presumption in favour of the granting of bail to people who are awaiting trial, because we think it right that our law, which presumes innocence until guilt is established by trial, should protect people, if at all possible, from being sent to prison without good cause before they have been shown to have committed any crime.
We welcome Clause 3, which abolishes the need for personal recognisances for persons granted bail, and Clause 6, which creates a new criminal offence of failing without reasonable cause to surrender to custody. The latest paper produced by Justice, again after a considerable amount of work and research, reflects—and by that reflection approves—the various measures contained in this Bill.
I have been asked to point out to the House—because it is something that has the approval of the Opposition—that Justice has always been anxious to see that there should be what has become known as verified information available, upon which the decision whether to grant bail can be founded. Again I refer to the Justice committee. One of our recommendations was that the kind of work being done by the Manhattan bail project by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, which had experimented in providing verified information, should be followed here. I am glad to hear that such an experiment is now being carried out here and that it appears to be successful and helpful.
We on the Opposition side of the House—I say this after considerable thought and discussion—are not satisfied that the aims that the Bill clearly has and declares are likely to be achieved by its provisions in their present form. We are particularly anxious about the interpretation of Clause 4 and Schedule 1. It is the reading of Clause 4 with Schedule 1 that gives us a good deal of concern.
We recognise that the general aim of the Bill, to keep as many people as possible out of prison, is laudable. We recognise that the aim of protecting people from unjustified and unnecessary imprisonment is laudable. At the same time, we bear in mind the equal and balancing requirement of seeing that the public is protected against people who, if left at large, might be a danger to it.
The impression one gets on reading the Bill is that a discretion is left to the magistrates or to the Crown court to allow bail in certain circumstances, but, on reading Schedule 1, one begins to wonder whether that discretion is anything more than an illusion. I understand that in Committee the Government intend to alter the wording of Schedule 1. Paragraph 1 reads:
The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would
and there then follow the three conditions that have to be satisfied. I understand from the Minister that it is the Government's intention to replace "unacceptable risk" with the word "probable".
I do not follow how a court is going to be satisfied that it is probable that a certain person is likely to fail to surrender to custody. What kind of evidence would one expect to discover that would bring the court to a state of mind in which it would be able to say "This person will probably fail to surrender to custody", or "This person will probably commit an offence whilst on bail", or "This person will probably interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice"? How is the court to be persuaded that these things are probable? It is making conditions which make it impossible for a court to act effectively. Unless in Committee we can do something pretty fundamental about the wording of Schedule 1, we are going to say, in effect, that the presumption that a person shall be entitled to bail is a presumption that is to be enjoyed by anyone who is charged with a criminal offence.

Mr. John: Do I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures also apply to the test of "unacceptable risk"?

Mr. Gardner: Yes. I think that that is so in both cases. Perhaps I can suggest

a way out. It is not something for which I can claim any responsibility. It is a suggestion by the Criminal Bar Association, and the House should consider it carefully. But first I want to illustrate the dangers which lie at present in the restricted language of Schedule 1.
Supposing—and there will be many cases where this applies—there is a bloody murderer or someone who has committed a heinous crime involving extreme violence. Where do we find in the wording of Schedule 1 any kind of opening for a court to say "In this case, taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, we cannot expose the public to the risk of allowing this man to remain at large"?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: But surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about a serious offence which will carry with it severe and serious penalties. Presumably, in such a case, the court would have to do no more than refer to paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1 to consider that that person will be one who will be assumed to fail to surrender to custody.

Mr. Gardner: No. That would be to abuse the wording of Schedule 1. First, if the Government have their way, the condition will be that it will be "probable" that the person will fail to surrender to custody. But a person who has committed a dreadful crime may well be a person who would surrender to custody, although, of course, the more extreme the gravity of the crime, the more likely it is that, if there is any propensity to run away, the person involved will be tempted not to surrender.

Mr. Weitzman: I honestly cannot see where the difficulty arises. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman read through the whole of paragraph 7(a), (b), (c) and (d)? Surely a court with any sense of responsibility must take all these factors into account in dealing with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.Where does the difficulty arise?

Mr. Gardner: The difficulty arises in any specific words in Schedule 1 which cover the nature and the gravity of the crime. I submit to the House that one of the provisions expressly put into the Criminal Justice Act 1967 should also be put into this Bill. This suggestion has the support of the Criminal Bar Association. The provision in question is Section


18(5)(f), which says, in effect, that magistrates shall not be required to remand or commit a person on bail.
where the act or any of the acts constituting the offence with which he is charged consisted of an assault on or threat of violence to another person, or of having or possessing a firearm, an imitation firearm, an explosive or an offensive weapon, or of indecent conduct with or towards a person under the age of 16 years".

Mr. Weitzman: But where is the difference between that and paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 1, to which I drew attention, which deals with the nature and seriousness of the offence?

Mr. Gardner: I want it to be expressed in language which is understood not only by lawyers but by the public outside. The hon. and learned Member should not dismiss so readily a serious contention of this kind. I want the public to know what the Bill is about and to realise that the statutory words in the Bill do something to protect them. I do not accept at the moment that in its present form the Bill gives the public that protection.
The recommendation of the Criminal Bar Association, which I put to the Government on behalf of the Opposition, is that the words of Schedule 1 should indicate that, where there is a real possibility that a person is likely to fail to surrender to custody, or is likely to commit an offence while on bail—and there should be no great difficulty in so finding on evidence—the court should be in a position to refuse bail.
I do not want to persist with what may well be, in effect, a Committee point in a Second Reading speech, but on the Opposition side of the House we recognise and emphasise the need for the maximum protection of the public, and we do not accept that the Bill in its present form enables the public to be protected as it deserves to be.
There are a number of occasions when the question of bail arises and must arise for consideration. The first is after a person has been charged with a criminal offence. The second is after a case has been committed for trial by a magistrates' court. The third is during the trial of the offence itself, when the judge has to make up his mind whether to continue bail at all times, or whether to restrict bail to certain times and to exclude it

at others—for example, during a midday adjournment.
The Bill deals, or is intended to deal, with each of those occasions, but the question of bail arises also after conviction and after sentence. I understand the Minister to have said, in the course of his opening remarks, that the Government now intend to amend the Bill so that the presumption that a person is entitled to bail will continue after conviction and before sentence. That proposition ought to be examined very carefully indeed before it is accepted by the House, for all kinds of reasons.
Finally, concerning the Bill as a whole, I draw attention to an important provision that refers to chidren and young people. As has been said so often before by hon. Members on both sides of the House, there is the most intense disquiet at the prospect of children under the age of 17 being sent to adult prisons. We know that this is happening now. There would, I think, be few, if any, hon. Members in the House who would not wish to see the Government put an end to this practice forthwith.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this matter on the Floor of the House today, instead of having it debated in a Second Reading Committee upstairs.
I share the concern of some hon. Members about the problems that the Bill presents to hon. Members and to outside bodies. I have received representations from many groups that are in favour of the legislation but want to see it amended in different directions. Having collected this information, I put it on one side, waiting and hoping to be selected for the Second Reading Committee, at which stage I would have given the material rather more careful scrutiny than I have been able to do this afternoon. However, it is a considerable advantage that the matter is being taken on the Floor of the House, because an important measure of this sort gains some stature by being taken in this way.
I welcome the measure, which is an attempt to reduce the number of people who are at the moment imprisoned. That is the major aspect of the Bill. Clearly,


there are many ways in which this can be done. One of the most important is to try to get out of prison those who are clearly not guilty of any offence. Although it may be a fairly small proportion of people who at the moment are remanded in custody awaiting trial and are then acquitted, it is still important for us to get them out of prison altogether. The advantage of getting such people out of prison is that we thereby help to reduce the present overcrowding in our prisons. This is important both for the prison officers and for the people who should be receiving treatment as well as punishment in prison.
We then come to the much more substantial number who may in the end be found guilty, but not of an offence that will produce a prison sentence. I realise that this category is harder to deal with, because some of them will not receive a prison sentence, for the very reason that they have been remanded in custody. But there are still many people remanded in custody awaiting trial who would in no circumstances, if convicted, receive prison sentences. In my view, it is very important that such people should not be held in prison.
In this respect, I am also concerned about the advice that some lawyers give to clients whom they know to be guilty. All too often, they encourage them to stay in prison on remand rather than try to get out on bail, because conditions in prison, on remand, are that much better than after sentence. I accept that remand prisoners get some privileges, but they do not receive treatment of any kind while on remand. In my view, in many cases it would be far better for lawyers to suggest to their clients that, although they are "guilty" and eventually will go to prison, they should apply for bail and spend their time while on remand trying to sort out some of the real problems that they will leave behind for their families, rather than relying on social workers to cope with them after they have been sentenced.
I should like to see lawyers advising their clients to apply for bail so that they might have an opportunity to sort out their personal problems, with the result that, when the time comes for them to serve their prison sentences, it is the sentence that involves punishment and

treatment, rather than the limbo stage of being held on remand.
There are many strong reasons for keeping people out of prison if they are not guilty of the offences with which they have been charged, not the least of which is the cost to the community. It is ridiculous to spend £60 or £70 a week keeping someone in prison only to find afterwards that he is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged. What is more, it results in a considerable sense of injustice, not only on the person concerned but on his family, if he is held in prison when he knows, and when eventually the court establishes, that he is innocent.
One of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill is the wide variation between the regions in the numbers of people let out on bail. It is ridiculous to have a situation in which in Liverpool, for example, an accused person has a better chance of being released on bail than if he lives elsewhere in the country and is accused of the same offence.
Then there are wide variations in practice according to the social class and background of the accused person. Recently I dealt with a case in my own constituency in which an accused man was refused bail because, according to the police, he had no fixed abode. In fact, he had been living in the same lodging-house for 18 months. The use of the term "no fixed abode" is extremely unfortunate. I realise that many people who live in lodging-houses move frequently. However, if a person has lived in the same lodging-house for 18 months, it is a little unfortunate if he is said by the police to have no fixed abode.
One argument against this measure is the increased possibility of people not surrendering to bail. The figures suggest that, at the moment, between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. do not surrender to bail. However, the case can be argued two ways. It can be argued that if we extended bail we would not see many more people failing to surrender. The same figures also argue that we have it about right now. But it seems that, in view of the very small percentage who do not surrender, we ought to take the risk of increasing the figure, bearing in mind all the benefits involved in doing so.
I have heard it argued by police officers that this proposal will involve them in more work and that it will take up more of their time. I do not accept that, because, on the presumption that people should have bail, the police will spend less of their time checking up on people and less time in court opposing bail applications, and I suspect that this saving of time will match any additional time and work involved in going after people who have jumped bail.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the police service wishes to make representations on this matter? The police wish to provide evidence and statistics which would have been helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House as a whole in arriving at a judgment. The hon. Gentleman has been denied access to their views, as has the House as a whole.

Mr. Bennett: I have evidence from some police officers. But it is amazing that, this matter having been on the Order Paper for such a long time, if the police had any intention of supplying every hon. Member with this information they did not do so before now. I accept that in Committee the police may wish to supply some Members with much more detailed information. However, the information that I have received about the number of people who fail to surrender to bail does not suggest that the police would be involved in a great deal more work.
I am more concerned about the problem of informing people who are out on bail when they are due to appear in court. If they are in custody, there is no difficulty, but if they are out on bail it is sometimes difficult to let them know when they should appear in court. In my experience, the police are often used as messengers for this purpose. That does not seem to be a very good use of police time, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to look further into how far we can ensure that people know when they are required to appear in court without the need to involve police officers in this work.
Recently, I have become aware of an attitude among individual policemen in my constituency that causes them to believe that a little time in prison is good

for certain people. There is a growing divergence of opinion between the police and social workers. In the past few months the two bodies have been extremely critical of each other. I appreciate that this may be the overriding feeling in the mind of the policeman who has seen the damage or destruction involved in the case with which he is dealing. But, recently, I inquired about a constituent of mine who had been refused bail and, as soon as I began talking to the officer concerned to try to get the background to the case, he stressed the human misery that had been created by the offence, and I could well understand why he wanted to see a strong prison sentence imposed. However, when I spoke to the social worker involved in the case, I became aware that he was more concerned with the mental state of the person who had committed the crime and had not seen the effect of the crime. As a result, he had a completely different attitude.
Although I do not advocate policemen and social workers doing each others' jobs, it is very important that in their training both should have a little more experience of the respective problems that they have to face. Then, perhaps, we could get away from some of the argument and dispute between them.
If policemen are not happy with the sentences that our courts are imposing, we come back to the need for a change in the law. We do not want the police trying to get round the courts to ensure that accused persons spend some time in prison on remand, which is in my view a very dangerous and damaging way for the police to behave.
It is very important that we emphasise that no one should be held in custody charged with an offence when a conviction will not involve a custodial sentence. The Minister went a long way to meet this point, but he appeared to have reservations about people who might be a danger to themselves or to the community. In such cases, far more emphasis should be placed on finding somewhere other than prison for these people to spend their remand period.
I came across an utterly ridiculous situation when I was dealing with the case of a constituent of mine. For some time,


he had been voluntarily attending a mental hospital. He discharged himself and subsequently became involved in a series of offences. The court decided to remand him in custody for medical reports. In the end, when the medical report came through it stated that a custodial sentence was completely inappropriate for this person. What was required was to get him back to hospital for treatment as soon as possible. But he spent three weeks in Risley, which was the least suitable place for a person in this state of illness. It is very important that in this legislation we try to ensure that if people are a danger to themselves or to someone else they are put in the right place, which is very often not a prison.
It seems to me that the Bill does not provide the best way to reduce the number of people in prison, because it puts another offence on the statute book that carries a prison sentence. Obviously, one is increasing the risk of people not surrendering to bail by bringing forward this legislation, but I think that £400 or 12 months' imprisonment is not the best approach. I hope that in Committee we can probe the Bill a little further to see whether there are better approaches than the one we have. It seems strange that a Bill such as this can produce a new offence that actually can put someone into prison.
If the Bill is successful, nobody who is subsequently acquitted will spend time remanded in custody. But we should probe the question whether people who are remanded in custody and later found to be not guilty are entitled to compensation for the havoc that has been done to their lives, and also the financial havoc that has been caused. I realise that problems of compensation are difficult, but I hope we can probe this in Committee.
The Bill as it stands will do nothing to speed up the process of justice, which is something I would like to see. The biggest problem we have at the moment arises from the time it takes between a person appearing in court and the next stage in the proceedings. If that time could be reduced, much of the debate on the necessity for bail could be shortened. We must consider ways in which we can speed up the process of justice, to ensure that people spend less time remanded in custody.
I welcome this measure, and I am glad it has been taken on the Floor of the House. However, in the rushed circumstances of this debate, it has not been easy to look through all the material that should be put forward.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: It is not my intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I had hoped that we would hear from the Minister of State a fuller justification for it. 'What does it achieve, other than create a new offence of failing to surrender to bail? My reading of the Bill is that it seems to put into legal form what is already the general practice. The Minister said that the Bill makes clearer the provision of bail, but I think that all it does is to repeat what was in the Home Office circular, after the working party report. Shortly after publication of that report, the Home Office issued Circular 155 of 1975, which dealt precisely with the circumstances in which bail should or should not be given in exactly similar terms to those contained in the Bill.
We are told that the Bill introduces a presumption in favour of bail, but that presumption already exists. In paragraph 5 of the Home Office circular it says:
It is intended that the legislation now being prepared should introduce a statutory presumption. The Secretary of State is aware that many courts already proceed in accordance with the Working Party's recommendations and he hopes that all courts will adopt this practice pending the introduction of a statutory presumption.
This presumption is already there. It is not necessary to have it written into the Bill.

Mr. John: But it is not statutory.

Mr. Sims: It may not be statutory, but I am not convinced that it is necessary to put the presumption into statutory form, because it is generally practised in most courts already.
The fact that the Bill has been brought forward in these terms implies that magistrates' courts are not granting bail when they should. That is the implication, and I think it is perhaps a little unjust. When a magistrate is presented with a bail application it is a difficult decision for him. But magistrates spend a great deal of time and trouble in considering every application made to them, and my con


cern is that the implementation of the Bill will be a further step in restricting the discretion of the courts.
One of the reasons that the Minister gave for introducing the Bill was that he hoped it would go some way to reducing the prison population. Will it do so? The Minister should bear in mind the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that we have in this country one of the lowest figures in the world—six in every 100,000. In any case, the fact that some people are remanded in custody and are not subsequently imprisoned is not necessarily a relevant argument in this context. There is a difference between "preventive custody" and "penalty after conviction." If the court really believes that a defendant may not surrender to bail, or that he may interfere with witnesses before the hearing, it is right that bail should be withheld, whatever the likely outcome if the defendant is found guilty.
My fear is that if the circumstances for bail are laid down in an Act of Parliament, the granting of bail becomes more rigid. At present, every case is dealt with on its merits. Under the Bill's provisions, rules are laid down, and in certain circumstances bail could be granted when it should not be, and the reverse could also apply. The Minister said that the purpose was to improve the quality of decisions on bail. I am afraid that it may have the reverse effect.
If the Bill proceeds I hope that we shall give further consideration to the circumstances outlined in Schedule 1, to which reference has already been made. At present, it reads:
The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—
(a) fail to surrender to custody, or
(b) commit an offence while on bail, or
(c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person."
I would have thought that "might" would be a more appropriate word than "would" here. The court cannot possibly know what a defendant is likely to do—it can only have suspicions.
What about the circumstances in which the defendant is likely to do harm to

himself or others? Perhaps the Bill covers circumstances in which he might do harm to himself in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, but circumstances in which he might harm others do not seem to be covered.
We have had a brief discussion on the extent to which the seriousness of offences will be covered in the final form of the Bill. I can just imagine the sort of arguments which we probably will have about what constitutes "unacceptable risks". This only illustrates the fact that the Bill will give wide scope for legal argument. One can visualise hon. and learned Members from both sides of the House having a field day disputing whether an offence is serious in terms of the Act, what an unacceptable risk constitutes, and what "probable" means in a legal context.
Reference has been made to bail after conviction. I think there should not be an automatic assumption for that. If there is a question of further remand for reports, in addition to the criteria laid down there should be added the one that the court may consider a custodial sentence—in which case continued custody may be appropriate so that reports can be obtained, when they can be obtained only, or perhaps more quickly, while the person is in custody.

Mr. John: I think that the points that I made, although not exactly meeting the formula that the hon. Gentleman is now putting forward, substantially meet his point, particularly where there is no other way of obtaining reports. I stated that this was one of the criteria under which bail should not be granted when awaiting reports.

Mr. Sims: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman referred to that matter, but I was not clear about the form in which that would be included in the Bill. Perhaps this is one of the points that we may discuss in Committee.
I should like to mention briefly three further points for consideration in Committee. The first is the question whether there should be some sort of penalty for false information given on bail information forms, because it may well be that a court could be misled into giving bail in circumstances in which it should not have done so.
Secondly, if a defendant has the right of appeal to a judge in chambers, against a bail refusal, is there not a case for the prosecution having a similar right of appeal where bail has been granted against the prosecution's wish?
Thirdly, perhaps we may take the opportunity in Committee to use the Bill to revive a proposal raised in another place in connection with the Criminal Justice Act 1972, but subsequently dropped, giving the courts, when bail has been refused, the power to remand in custody for longer than eight days; for example, for 28 days, with—I add this stipulation—the consent of the defendant. One can deploy the argument on the issue at greater length in Committee. However, it seems to me that the saving of time and expense—not least police time, and the cost of legal aid upon such custody—would be substantial.
Finally, there is an issue that has not been specifically mentioned and does not appear on the face of the Bill but which is important to its successful implementation. That is the issue of who is to complete the bail information forms that will be an essential part of the procedure if the Bill becomes law. The Home Office circular to which I have referred suggests that probation officers would be the appropriate people to do it, and, of course, probation officers have been used in the experiment at Camberwell. The working party's report suggests that it would be the job of the court staff to complete the forms. Another possibility raised in certain quarters is that it be the job of the police.
I should have thought that there were strong arguments against any of those three bodies of people being involved in completing these forms. Probation officers have a rôle akin to that of social workers. They are involved in advising, assisting and befriending defendants. They are certainly not administrators and would not be appropriate for the task. Court clerks may be involved in the subsequent case, and of course, almost certainly the police will be involved. In any event, all of those three bodies suffer from similar problems and shortage of manpower. Perhaps the answer is something on the lines of a duty solicitor, or a trained voluntary worker, who would be prepared to undertake this aspect of the work.
As I have indicated, I have yet to be completely convinced that this is a necessary Bill. However, if it receives a Second Reading, as I trust it will, I hope that we can fashion it into an instrument that will enhance, rather than detract from, the efficiency and justice of our system of magistrates' courts—a system that is unique.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I read with great interest the debate in another place. I am very glad that I did so, because I share the indignation expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and by another hon. Member about the fact that the debate has come on without any real notice. This is a very important Bill. I should have thought that much more time should have been given so that we could ascertain the views of constituents and the public, and so that expressions of opinion on this matter could have been given in the Press and we could have dealt with it in some detail. I am glad that I read the debate in another place, because, at any rate, I went into the views that were expressed there.
This is a very important Bill, because it deals with the liberty of the subject. After all, the principle that every person is deemed to be innocent until his guilt has been proved, and that the burden of proof of that guilt lies upon the prosecution, is something that is most important in our law. Therefore, unless there are weighty reasons to the contrary, surely it is of vital importance that bail should be granted in every case.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the number of men and women who were remanded in prison before trial for criminal offences in 1974. I think that it was overy 60,000. We know that every year about 2,000 persons are remanded in custody and are subsequently acquitted. There may be reasons why they are not given bail—in some cases they may be important reasons—but, bearing in mind those figures, it is startling that so many people are treated in that way. Bearing in mind how full our prisons are and how difficult it is to cope with the prisoners, and how, in many cases, there exist rotten conditions with which, because of our economic circumstances, we cannot deal.


in a matter of this kind surely the question of bail must be very carefully considered.
Therefore, it is extremely important that the Bill should enact in Clause 4 the principle that bail shall be granted, the emphasis being on the word "shall". Clearly, there must be exceptions. I take it that those exceptions are not merely cases in which a police officer opposes bail or gives an opinion that cannot be tested. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the exceptions in Schedule 1. It seems that the exceptions are very properly set out. Paragraph 1 reads.
"(a) fail to surrender to custody, or
(b) commit an offence while on bail, or
(c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person."
There has been some suggestion that the words "unacceptable risk" should be deleted in Committee and that the word "probable" should be inserted. I certainly think that the words "unacceptable risk" ought to be deleted, because they involve an almost impossible task in the question of bail. What is an unacceptable risk?

Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the words "unacceptable risk" erect a burden of proof that is almost insurmountable, but is not the word "probable" an even higher obstacle?

Mr. Weitzman: No, I do not agree. I do not know whether the word "probable" is satisfactory. I am not suggesting that it is completely satisfactory, but it is probably much better than the words "an unacceptable risk". This matter must be looked at very carefully in Committee, because something must be done to put it in its proper perspective. Although I think, with respect, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in referring to the suggestion made that the words in the 1967 Act ought to be put in, in my view the interpretation clause—Clause 7—is very satisfactory, with the omission, of course, of the constitution of an unacceptable risk. Perhaps the words should be the consequence of events occurring constitutes the "probability", or something to that effect. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to look carefully at the words in sub-

paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), because they set up exactly the same standard that he was suggesting. They are there as a complete guidance to the magistrates.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that the interpretation in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 and the other grounds in paragraph 1 are the only grounds upon which magistrates and Crown courts can act? They are not extended by the interpretation sections; they are merely enlarged. They do not cover our suggested new ground of something similar to the provision in the 1967 Act.

Mr. Weitzman: I do not appreciate the force of that argument. Paragraph 1(a) mentions failure to surrender to custody, and when a magistrate is considering whether to grant bail he will take into account such matters and look at the interpretation sections to judge the situation in the light of those sections. I see nothing to prevent magistrates considering the matter and acting upon that basis.
I welcome Clause 3, which abolishes recognisances. They have often been useless and extracting them has led to real hardship. Certain reasonable safeguards are included in the Bill. Under Clause 6, a person who fails to surrender to custody will be guilty of a criminal offence and subject to the penalties contained in subsection (7)
Perhaps the most important point was made when the Bill was considered in another place. It is the need for information to be given to magistrates. The pilot schemes being carried out to secure that information were mentioned in the debate in another place.
Magistrates have a most difficult task if they wish to deal with bail applications fairly. They have to take into account the need to protect the defendant's liberty, but also the need to protect the public from the danger of further crimes. It is important that they should have the fullest possible information about a defendant's background. I hope everything possible will be done to assist them in order that they may be able to deal with applications fairly.
Clause 11 relates to legal aid. It is important that this should be granted wherever possible. I know the difficulties


caused by our present economic situation, but the granting of legal aid should be constantly kept in mind in court cases.
It will be very difficult to impose upon judges the obligation set out in the Bill to grant bail after conviction and before sentencing. When a jury has convicted a man, the judge will know the character and background of the defendant and the consideration of bail will then be an entirely different matter.
Judges sometimes grant bail if there is an appeal on an important legal point, but these are rather exceptional cases and I hope that before coming to a decision on this matter, hon. Members will consider it very carefully in Committee. Considerable thought must be given to the Bill before we get down to brass tacks.
I support the Bill. It will be a great help in many directions. I hope that it will receive attention in Committee and come out in a satisfactory form, as something that we can all support as it is put on the statute book.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who speaks with much experience on this subject. I am also glad to be able to agree with his first point about this Bill being foisted on the House for Second Reading.
It is quite unsatisfactory that such an important Bill should be brought up suddenly because other business is not being considered today. The Bill has been considered in another place and hon. Members have had the opportunity to read a report of the debate that took place there, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who speaks for the Police Federation in this House, made a valid point when he said there are many outside organisations which wish to communicate their feelings on the Bill to hon. Members.
These organisations had assumed that there would be a public announcement stating when the Bill was to be considered. It is normal for them to circularise hon. Members a few days before a Second Reading debate. They know that hon. Members are inundated with correspondence and that if they receive

material weeks before a debate it may get lost.
I can speak from unique experience. I suppose that this is the first time that an hon. Member has spoken in a debate on the bail system when he is on bail himself. I have not only been on bail for some time, but I also have the unique experience, among those speaking in this debate, that bail was refused to me not once but on many occasions. I have had the opportunity of seeing the situation from the other side of the fence.
I do not intend to talk about my case, but my experience has given me an insight into the way in which the bail system operates and into the conditions suffered by the poor, unfortunate people who are denied bail after being accused of an offence and find themselves in a remand prison. The situation is very serious, and I shall refer to that aspect in a few moments.
The House of Commons research department has produced figures showing that in 1974—the most recent year for which statistics are available—51,422 persons were held for some time during the year awaiting trial. Of those, 2,101 were found not guilty or discharged and 20,915 were convicted of minor offences and received no custodial sentence. Is that figure disputed? According to the research document that I have in my hand it is 20,915, but that may be inaccurate. Research documents of the House are sometimes wrong. Most of us have seen the Home Office working party report, which gave similar figures going back over the past 10 or 15 years. For almost any year the figures demonstrate, whatever figures are used, that a large number of people go into remand prisons for some considerable time. At the end of the day, about 40 per cent. of them are acquitted or given non-custodial sentences.
The situation is serious. I read the report of the debate in another place. I was interested to read the comment of Lord Wigoder, who said that the situation was serious not only because people were denied bail but because they were
remanded in custody to places where the conditions are as unpleasant as in Brixton Prison "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22nd March 1976; Vol. 369, c. 520.]
I was pleased that Lord Hailsham agreed with that comment. Indeed. Lord


Hailsham must be complimented, because when he was Lord Chancellor he made some very outstanding statements, which have now found their way into the Bill, about the right of all Englishmen to bail.
Comments were made in another place about the conditions in Brixton. I share in those comments. I wrote an article about the matter in the New Statesman last September, shortly after I came out of Brixton. I pointed out that the conditions were deplorable. I wrote:
The pressure on space and the antiquated buildings condemn the defendants to live in squalid and dehumanising conditions. In C Wing in Brixton, built for just over 100 prisoners nearly a century ago, there are about 340 defendants living three to a cell. In a space of just over 100 square feet three men have to spend 23 hours a day, apart from the occasional solicitor's or social visit and the brief intervals for 'slopping out' or collecting food. There are no communal rooms for association and recreation. The toilet facilities in that particular wing consist of only four water closets for 340 men and plastic chamber pots in each cell. There are four showers and a shower is allowed to each man only weekly.
To lock men up for 23 hours a day, three men to a cell, is a deplorable way to behave, whoever they may be. Let us remember that all these men are defendants awaiting trial, and that a large number of them will be acquitted at the end of the day. Indeed, 40 per cent. of them will either be acquitted or given non-custodial sentences. The crime of society in putting them into those conditions is even more serious. It is absolutely deplorable that tonight, as we debate the Bill in the Chamber, there are 1,000 men in Brixton Prison, most of them defendants awaiting trial, living in deplorable and antiquated conditions.
I welcome the Bill although, in a sense, it is unnecessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that it is unnecessary, but at least it recognises that there is something wrong. The Bill is a sign of earnestness on the part of the Government in thinking that something must be done to avoid treating men in this deplorable way.
The Bill needs improvement. It is necessary that Schedule 1 be looked at again. I am glad that the Minister of State has indicated that that will be proposed in Committee. If we are to have it I should prefer it to be reworded to provide for a high probability.
It must be clear that, when considering bail and whether a defendant will abscond, the onus of proof must be on the prosecuting authority. It is not for a defendant necessarily to prove the matter, although he will want to bring forward the best possible information, either directly or through his solicitor. The onus must be on the prosecution to show that the defendant is a person who is likely to fall within the categories set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the schedule.
It is important that the prosecution should be expected, if it is opposing bail, to show clear evidence that the court may expect the defendant to behave in the way that is suggested.
That brings me to a key point about the whole matter of the granting or denying of bail. Unfortunately, the police, in particular, and, to some extent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, still take the view, despite the attitude that has been taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and successive Lord Chancellors that bail is the right of all Englishmen, that the denial of bail is a useful weapon in their pursuance of an individual whom they wish to make into a convict. The police, after all, have regarded themselves as having a duty to get convictions. It is not part of their responsibility to try to see the defendant's point of view. The police identify a person whom they consider to be a criminal, and all their efforts are directed towards obtaining a conviction.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's last remark should go unchallenged. It is not correct to say that it is the duty of the police to get convictions. Their duty is to bring people to trial. It is not the duty or concern of the police to consider the outcome of the trial.

Mr. Stonehouse: That was a facile interjection. First, I did not say it was the duty of the police to get a conviction. I said that, unfortunately, the police often regard it as their duty to get a conviction, which is another position altogether.
The police, unfortunately, have an attitude that it is their responsibility to win the game at the end of the day. This is an unfortunate aspect of the way in which the police go about their work. It


was demonstrated the other day by no less a person than the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark. Sir Robert made a speech in which he said, revealingly, that 50 per cent. of criminals are acquitted and get away with it: he thought that was deplorable.
That remark reveals that Sir Robert Mark has set himself up as a higher court of appeal. He considers all those individuals within the 50 per cent. who have been acquitted to be criminals who have got away with it. That attitude of mind must be deplored.
It remains true, despite the interjection by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who speaks with a certain amount of experience of one aspect of the administration of the law, that in many cases the police regard their job as getting a conviction. If they fail to get a conviction, they feel that somehow they have lost out. That is why the police often go about their job by suppressing information that may be of advantage to a defendant at his eventual trial. The police often prevent a defendant from having contact with witnesses who might be advantageous to him by opposing bail so that the defendant is safely out of the way in prison.
When I was in Brixton Prison I met many people who, like myself, had been denied bail. Some of them suffered severe penalties as a result of that denial. The denial of bail to a man or a woman—certainly to a man who is the breadwinner for his family—is a serious condition. If he is eventually acquitted nothing can take away the stigma of having been in prison for even a short time. His neighbours will know something about it. If he is acquitted they will still think that he is a bad man because he would not have been put into prison unless there was something bad. Most of them will probably not even know that he has been acquitted, but they will know that he was locked away for a time. Furthermore, the employer of a man who is denied bail will get to know about it very quickly, and that man may lose his job. He will need a very understanding employer to allow him to be away for months on end and then come back to his job after he has been in prison.
In the most serious cases wives have left their husbands because they have been in gaol for so long. Fortunately, those examples are rare, because most wives are loyal to their husbands when they are in prison. Indeed, they go to extreme pains to travel long distances to visit them. When a wife gets to the prison where her husband is on remand, she may discover that she has only half an hour, or even less, to see him, in an overcrowded visitors' room where it is almost impossible to have any private conversation.
Any man who is denied bail and goes into prison, even for a short period, pays a very big price. I met men in Brixton who had been denied bail for over a year. I heard of several who, at their final trials, were acquitted of all charges against them. Yet for those men there is no compensation. Society has made them pay a price that they should not have paid, but they cannot expect anything back from the society that has done this terrible thing to them.
We should not only introduce the concept of the presumption of every Englishman to have bail, but change the practice of the police and prosecuting authorities of automatically opposing the granting of bail to suit their own purposes. I hope that, through every possible measure of education, the DPP, prosecuting authorities, the police and everybody involved in the bringing of charges will understand that they should not come to the court and automatically oppose bail, but that they should get into the spirit of the Bill and bend over to ensure that the presumption of bail is in their minds, as well as in the Bill.
There are many cases where men are denied bail at the first hearing in the lower court, but subsequently obtain bail, after a week or so, as a result of an appeal to a judge in chambers or, indeed, when they appear at the commital proceedings. If it is right that a defendant should get bail as a result of an appeal to a judge in chambers or in some other way, it should be presumed that it is right that he should get bail at the first hearing of the charge or charges against him.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of correct procedures being adopted the first time


a defendant appears in the lower court. A remarkably interesting article, written by Mr. Michael King, appeared in The Guardian on 11 th July 1972. Mr. King drew from the report produced by Mr. Michael Zander as a result of research conducted by the London School of Economics with 134 prisoners. Mr. Zander and his team found that almost two-thirds of those who had asked to speak to a solicitor after their arrest were denied that right by the police.
Going back to the first experience of an individual when he is arrested and his wish to obtain bail at that stage, it is vital that he should have access to a solicitor for assistance with his application for bail at that critical stage in the whole process. As Michael Zander and his researchers discovered, of those who asked to see a solicitor, two-thirds were refused. Therefore, at that critical first stage they had little chance of getting outside assistance in the preparation of their applications for bail. They appeared in the magistrates' court having had no contact even with their families before their applications were heard. When cases are heard in the magistrates' court, invariably the only information available to the court is that produced by the prosecuting authority or by the police.
As I said, in too many cases the police have a vested interest in denying bail to a defendant. They are not interested in bringing before the court the full facts. Therefore, at the first stage it is vital that an individual who is arrested should, as of right, have access to a solicitor. I think that an individual who is arrested should, within the first six hours after his arrest, have the right to telephone to his family, friends or a solicitor, so that someone on the outside will know that he is under arrest. In many cases the persons arrested are kept virtually incommunicado by the police in police cells—sometimes for several days. Often their families do not know where they are and they have no opportunity of getting any help in preparing bail applications for when they eventually appear in court. It is important that when the court first considers a man's case for bail it has information about him, and that that information should be provided by the defendant and his solicitors by allowing him access to outside contact.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst about the importance of completing bail information forms, but I do not agree with him that the probation department should be absolved from responsibility in this connection. I speak as a former assistant in a probation department. I believe that no probation official worth his salt would reject the opportunity to assist a defendant coming before the court by providing objective information about that person's circumstances. I do not disagree that there should be an opportunity for voluntary social workers, properly trained also to give assistance in this connection.
I hope that when the magistrates' court is first hearing an application by the prosecution to deny bail, with the onus on the prosecuting authority to prove whatever is laid down in Schedule 1 as the conditions for opposing the application, there will be the fullest opportunity for information about the defendant to go forward at that stage, instead of being deferred to another occasion, because if there is a deferral even for a day or two, the defendant will find himself locked up in Brixton, or in some other remand prison, and I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that wherever possible even that short period of incarceration should be avoided. In fact, if there has to be a delay—an hour's delay, a day's delay or even two days' delay while the information is being obtained—it would be better for the accused person to be kept in a police cell for that period rather than be sent to Brixton.
I take strong objection to the provision in the Bill creating a new criminal offence. This is a backward step rather than a step forward. Indeed, it would be better to do without the Bill than to include this provision in Clause 6, because it will bring yet another offence on to the statute book. If persons abscond from bail, this provision will have the result of putting them through the hoop again after they have stood up to the charges of which they were originally accused.
I believe that if a person has jumped bail and comes forward to the court, either voluntarily or because he has been discovered by the police and apprehended to stand trial on the original offence of which he is accused, that, together with the extra sentence that the judge might impose, will be sufficient penalty, and that


he should not be subjected to the hazard of further criminal proceedings, which will only have the effect of cluttering up the courts.
If someone is acquitted of the original offence of which he is accused, even though he had jumped bail during the intervening period, it would be deplorable to drag him back, he having already suffered a great deal of anguish as a result of being subjected to trials on charges of which he has been acquitted, and subject him to yet another trial on a charge of absconding from bail.
There is another objection to this provision, and that is that it will not be a deterrent, because any individual who is considering jumping bail will not stop to say to himself "I cannot do that: I cannot jump bail, because at the end of the day I might face another charge". He is already facing charges which he regards as so serious, or so stupid, or because he has had a psychiatric breakdown or something, that he is convinced that he has to jump bail, and the fact that there is a criminal charge involved in the action of jumping bail will not be a deterrent to him in that frame of mind.
I do not think that that clause is of any value, and I do not know why it has been introduced into the Bill. I suspect that it is here only as a sop to the police and others who may object to the improving of the bail conditions, and I very much hope that in Committee it will be removed from the Bill.
I now propose to refer to the further steps that could be taken by an accused person to obtain bail if he were denied it in the lower court. There is a method by which an individual, or his solicitor, can appeal to a judge in chambers, but this is a cumbersome procedure, and I suggest that considerattion should be given to a proposal that has been put forward by prison officers themselves. They suggest that the judge should visit prisons to hear appeals for bail from remandees, rather than have the cumbersome business of the person concerned, or his solicitor, going to a judge in chambers. This proposal would be far more convenient and a far better way of dealing with the situation.
I should like to see a change in the practice of dealing with sureties. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the onus will be on the court, not merely

on the police, to consider whether the sureties are acceptable. I hope that in practice this will mean that more sureties will be acceptable than has been the case heretofore. In too many cases a defendant has been granted bail only after many attempts, either because sureties have been difficult to obtain or because they have been brought forward but rejected by the police, and presumably sureties could be rejected by the court if the same attitude were adopted in future as has been adopted up to now. I greatly admired the way in which the prison staff at Brixton, in particular, applied themselves to the job of assisting remandees to get in touch with possible sureties. I hope very much that that kind of assistance can be extended, so that prisoners who are trying to get sureties receive every possible assistance in that regard.
I hope, too, that another aspect of this matter can be considered, and that is the length of time that accused persons have to await trial when they are denied bail. There is a provision in Scottish law that if an accused person is not brought to trial within, I think, 110 days, he must be released. That aspect of the administration of justice could well be adopted in England, because in far too many cases persons are denied bail, sometimes for good reason, and are then kept in prison for 18 months or even longer before the trial takes place. I would hope there can be a speeding up of the hearing of cases where the accused person has, for one reason or another, been denied bail.
Although I do not think that all the provisions in the Bill are satisfactory I welcome it as a small step in the right direction. I particularly hope that the change in attitude that it shows on the part of the Home Secretary and his Department will be mirrored in the attitudes of those who have other responsibilities in the administration of justice.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: There has been a great deal of criticism from some hon. Members about the fact that we are having this Second Reading debate in the Chamber. Yet had it not been for the rather strange and, some would say, somewhat unfortunate circumstances of earlier this afternoon the Bill would have gone to a Second Reading Committee.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) came into the Chamber in a great huff, after the Minister had started speaking, complaining that the Bill was being taken today. He might have joined me and some of my other hon. Friends in putting pressure on the Lord President and the Home Secretary to make sure that the Bill was read on the Floor of the House. He complained about the Bill being given a Second Reading today. Had it not been today, had the Bill gone to a Second Reading Committee and had he been observing what was going on, he might have been able to consult his paymasters and to make later the kind of comments he wanted to make in defence of the police. But he stormed out in a great petulant huff, which is not exactly the kind of attitude or demeanour which one would expect from an hon. Gentleman who claims to represent law and order and to speak for the police.

Mr. Ian Percival: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If I may finish this point first. Indeed, had the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds been before a juvenile court, his behaviour might have been described as meriting the granting of an unruly certificate.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a pity that he did not do so a moment ago. He ought to know that there was no question of the Bill going to a Second Reading Committee. That procedure would have been objected to from this side of the House and the Bill would have been dealt with on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That may well be.

Mr. Percival: It is.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept that. I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman's party would have taken that attitude, but I wish I had known about that earlier. My hon. Friends and I would have been grateful for assistance in twisting the Whips' arms.
One of the main complaints by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was that not sufficient time had been given for representations. But that is not the case. The Bill was mentioned in the Queen's

Speech and it has been in the other place. Dozens of documents have been issued for some considerable time, such as the joint policy statement from NACRO and the Howard League. Many other organisations seem to have taken this place seriously enough to find out what was going on here and to make their representations. If the police are as concerned as appears from their public statements, they should have taken some appropriate action to ensure that their views were put across. Indeed, they were, for the hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have heard of nothing but the complaints of Leslie Male and his cohorts about this Bill and many other things proposed by the Government or proposed and amended by successive Governments in the past.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that I came into the Chamber complaining that I did not have time to "consult my paymasters." I would ask you to tell him to withdraw that imputation against me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Did the hon. Gentleman use the word "paymasters"?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if it was incorrect, of course I withdrawn it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing that remark?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it were incorrect.
I also understand that the Police Superintendents' Association has issued a draft policy statement on the Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has it in his possession now. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is so keen to represent the police that I would have thought that he would be a little more careful in finding out what they think rather than waiting for them to come to him. Some hon. Members on my side of the House have managed to do that very effectively and very well.
So far, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman's petulant tantrums, this has been an interesting and well-balanced


debate. On the whole there has been a welcome, conditional in some instances, for the Bill and its provisions.
It is difficult to strike the fine balance which is necessary between the inestimable value of the liberty of the subject and the clearly established and accepted right to protect society from those who would commit offences against it. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards enhancing the liberty of the subject, although its provisions, in certain respects, are perhaps better dealt with in Committee. Perhaps it is too cautious in its urge to protect society rather than the liberty of the subject with which it is concerned.
However, I welcome the fact that we are debating it today and I welcome the Home Secretary's and the Government's commitment to it. It is sad that we should even have to debate this issue at this juncture. It is a sad commentary on our society that so many people are incarcerated in prison establishments. I am thinking not just of the many found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences, but of those who, under our present law, are found guilty of offences which many of us would regard as inappropriate for imprisonment. I am thinking of vagrants, drunks and even prostitutes, none of whom is in any sense redeemed, reformed or rehabilitated by a dose of imprisonment.
It is sad that so many of them are in prison when we have almost an all-time high in the prison population and there are plans for further extensions to existing prisons as well as for new prisons. We expect the prison population to rise to about 50,000 in the early 1980s, at a time when we are trying to devise and to put into practice means for reducing the prison population and cutting public expenditure.
It is also an extremely sad fact, which we must take into account, that so many of those people who are put into prison are subsequently found to be not guilty, have their cases not proceeded with or are given non-custodial sentences. Of the 64,981 persons remanded in custody in 1974, 2,101 were subsequently found not guilty or did not have their cases proceeded with and 29,015 were given non-custodial sentences. Only 26,000-plus were imprisoned after conviction.
It should give considerable cause for concern not just to those who have the liberty of the subject and his rights under the law uppermost in their minds but to any decent law-abiding citizen that more than 50 per cent. of those put in prison turn out to be people determined subsequently by the courts never to have needed a prison sentence. That is a blight on what is otherwise a civilised society.
It is, of course, true, as the Minister of State said, that the numbers on remand in this country, per head of population, or by any other series of indices which one takes, are lower than those of most comparable Western civilisations. But this is not a reason for complacency on the part of those of us who wish to improve our system of justice and our penal system and to extend the liberty of the subject even further. I do not accept as a reasonable or convincing argument that one can point to some other country where things are worse than they are here as a reason for not improving things in this country. We may lead the world in this area, bat let us continue to lead the world by (living a further example.
But, it is not the figures that are important. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), who now sits for some nationalist party or other, has given us a clear account of the personal effects of imprisonment. We are dealing with people—people who are affected psychologically, emotionally and financially by imprisonment. We have all bandied about a number of figures. Few of us have the capacity to speak with personal experience. Some of us have spoken of cases known to us personally, but the effects of imprisonment, certainly on those who are subsequently found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence, are traumatic.
They have already been punished, they have already lost earnings, for which they will receive no compensation. Hardship has been inflicted upon their families, they have probably subjected themselves and their families to great psychological and emotional turmoil. As is the case in many instances known to me, they may even have lost their homes as a result of being in prison, although eventually found not guilty. They may have been evicted for failure to pay rent which they could not pay because they were


in prison and could not earn A whole host of social problems follow from the simple refusal of bail.
Anyone who knows deeply and clearly about this kind of problem cannot but welcome any attempt to ensure that only those who are a clear danger to society should be deprived of their freedom until they are convicted. But we are dealing with a large number of people who, under our present system of justice, are innocent until they have been convicted—and few of them have been treated as such.
It is not only a question of hardship—financial, emotional, psychological and social—which is caused to the individual and his family and relatives. His reputation is also severely affected. The fact that he is subsequently found not guilty is neither here nor there to the general public. They know that he has been inside and they feel that there is no smoke without fire. We have a great responsibility to bear that in mind when discussing the Bill.
Other disadvantages apply to someone who is remanded to prison to await trial. He is at a severe disadvantage in preparing his case. He does not have the same kind of ready access to his solicitor. He may indeed be geographically isolated from both his family and his solicitor and may not have the physical communication with his advisers to help him to present his case. He cannot brief his friends in the simple operation of tracking down witnesses and persuading them to appear on his behalf. These are some of the disadvantages and side effects of this system.
There is also the problem of overcrowded prisons. We have heard of the Home Secretary's wish to reduce the prison population to the "irreducible minimum". The untried inmates on remand make up a considerable proportion of the normal certified prison population. I would not wish to exaggerate this, but on any one day there are between 3,000 and 5,000 people on remand awaiting trial. The last figure that I have been able to obtain shows that the average daily remand population in 1974 was 5,081. The latest figure for this year was supplied to me by my hon. Friend, but because of the speed with which this debate was entered into today,

I have not had access to all the figures that I have been assiduously collecting in the past few months.
At Brixton, the certified normal accommodation is for 649 prisoners. In addition to 222 convicted prisoners, there were 714 untried inmates on 15th February this year. At Leeds, the total number of inmates is 1,009, including 180 untried inmates—yet the certified normal accommodation is for 592. One could go on giving examples of local prisons as well as remand centres.
No one should be remanded in custody unless he has first been offered legal representation. That is something that we should discuss in Committee and perhaps put into the Bill. There should be a clear offer of legal reresentation to any one, even as a result of these changes, before he is remanded in custody.
Surveys have shown that a higher proportion of those who are legally represented get bail against police opposition. The solicitor can often offer information to the courts which is subsequently sought as a result of the social or psychiatric inquiry. Perhaps a court asks for information, and the absence of that information might be given as a reason for refusing bail. Those who are legally represented are generally more successful. On such a serious issue as depriving a technically innocent man of his liberty, we must ensure that he is adequately represented.
I support the presumption of bail for social, psychiatric and medical remands. Speaking from memory, I believe that there were about 12,000 remands into custody for psychiatric reports in 1974. That has always seemed to me a bizarre way of proceeding. I did not know that it was considered to be appropriate to send a person to prison to see a doctor, but that is what we are doing. Nor would I have thought that a prison was the proper environment in which to carry out a psychiatric, still less a social, inquiry. Yet we send many people to prison establishments for such reports.
Surveys also show that two-thirds of those remanded for psychiatric, social and medical reports are eventually given non-custodial sentences. So we are putting away 12,000 people a year for these reports and subsequently two-thirds are


given non-custodial sentences and therefore should not have been in prison in the first place. That is a slander on our penal system and something which the Bill must remove.
The Advisory Council on the Penal System, in its report on young adult offenders, argued that young offenders should not even be remanded to prison for psychiatric reports. I should think that many such observations would be invalidated simply because of the unnatural nature of the surroundings and the superficial and artificial environment.
I should also favour a presumption of bail pending appeal. There are arguments either way and there are difficulties in imposing such a presumption. But it is known that many offenders, particularly those convicted of petty offences, do not apply for bail and are deterred from appealing simply because they have been given light sentences. They accept a light sentence rather than the remand in custody which would automatically follow their attempt at appeal. I am sure that many such people are prepared, whether guilty or not, to take the consequences of a relatively short period of imprisonment instead of the longer one which would be involved if they appealed.
Therefore, there should be a presumption of bail pending appeal after conviction but before sentence.
I cannot see why the criteria listed in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 1 cannot also apply to those who are convicted but are given bail pending sentence or those who are appealing and given bail. I do not accept the interpretation of Schedule 1 made by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
The same criteria for those who cannot get bail now apply to those awaiting sentences and meet all of the requirements. With other hon. Members, I take great offence at the creation of new offences in a Bill the aim of which is a reduction in the prison population. I cannot see the necessity for, or the logic of, the new offence of absconding from bail. That will not act as a deterrent. Few will abscond anyway, and the fact that there is an offence of absconding from bail will not deter people from absconding. If somebody absconds, that is taken into account when he is subsequently dealt with.
We are dealing here with such people as drunks and vagrants. They are the people who do not turn up when they are supposed to turn up. Those who abscond and are later caught are those who should not be imprisoned and for whom the Criminal Justice Act, when the Secretary of State has sufficient resources, will provide. Drunks and vagrants abscond for a variety of reasons, few of which have anything to do with a wilful attempt to disobey the law. To penalise them with a further term of imprisonment or to impose upon them a fine when they cannot even find five bob to buy the wine that one can obtain in Liverpool is a nonsense and makes a mockery of the law. It may be possible to delete that part of the Bill in Committee.
I wish to fly a few kites. Would it not be appropriate for compensation to be paid to those who have been refused bail and who are subsequently found not guilty? They will have already suffered a great deal—loss of liberty, the disruption of family life and financial loss. The courts might take matters more seriously if they had to find compensation for those who are wrongfully imprisoned. Compensation is paid in France and Western Germany, and perhaps we can do the same. It might also be appropriate to provide legal aid for bail applicants to justices in chambers.
The remand into custody of school children between the ages of 14 and 16 worries me. One should not let the subject pass without talking about such remands in custody. No one would suggest that we should put school children into prison. There is no legal requirement or power to put them into prison when they are guilty, but we imprison them when they are innocent and on remand. In any one year, up to 6,000 school children pass through our penal institutions, many of them adult prisons.
There has been a White Paper in response to the Expenditure Committee's Report on the Children and Young Persons Act. It deals with the remand of schoolgirls of 14 to local adult prisons but leaves aside the problems of girls of 15 and 16 and of boys of 14 to 16. It deftly smoothe over the fact that remand centres are prisons. They have cells and bars and the strict regimentation which applies to local adult prisons.
It is intolerable that we as a society can, almost without thought, put so many of our school children into adult prisons. What is worse, so many of them are subsequently found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences. A total of 205 boys and girls were detained in local adult prisons in 1974. I inquired how many of those were subsequently found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences. The House must remember that we are talking about school kids in adult prisons rubbing shoulders with real criminals and other worldly characters. I found that 75 per cent. of the girls and 50 per cent. of the boys were found not guilty or given non-custodian sentences. Yet they had already, in effect, served prison sentences, with all the damage that that can do to their mental state and future development. What kind of bitterness and resentment must that create within them against a society which treats them so callously and cruelly?
I cannot see the reason for the absurd Schedule 1(2) which reads:
The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the accused should remain in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare.
Are we saying that we shall not grant bail but we will put into prison, for his or her own welfare, a child or young person? Is that what that schedule says? By any stretch of the imagination I cannot see how one can so torture the English language as to put a child or a young person into prison for his or her welfare.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but I welcome the Bill, which closely matches that which many hon. Members expected and hoped for. It manages to draw the fine line between the liberty of the subject and the defence and protection of society. That is a fine balance which we must tread carefully and warily. Parts of the Bill need to be tightened if it is to revolutionise our attitude to innocent people charged with offences. I warmly support the Bill and I hope that it gets its Second Reading and passes quickly through its remaining stages.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I listened with much admiration to what was obviously the fruit of considerable research by the hon. Member

for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). It is not research that I can match. Perhaps there will be an advantage in that my speech will be considerably shorter.
I join the hon. Gentleman to the extent of underlining what he said about the evil of committing young people to prison. I am certain that we still underestimate, although we are much better at the matter than we were, the harmful effects upon young people of having at so impressionable an age that experience of prison life.
I cannot help feeling a little ashamed for the House that at about six hours' notice we are debating what is agreed on all sides to be one of the more important measures in recent years in this area. I am also slightly ashamed of the necessarily superficial way in which my speech will deal with the few issues that I want to touch upon. I wholly support what the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) said about that.
It is rather trite now to remark that the decision the House must take on the question of the circumstances in which bail may be granted or withheld is an exercise in balance, like most decisions in politics. We must balance the need to preserve the liberty of the individual and the need to secure the safety of society.
I listened with great attention to what the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) said about conditions in Brixton Prison. I believe that we are primarily discussing a matter of principle, but the importance of that issue of principle cannot but have been underlined in the mind of every hon. Member who heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about the conditions in which men on remand live in Brixton Prison. The hon. Member for Ormskirk spoke of other prisons throughout the country. With that practical evidence in our minds, we should approach with the greatest care the deliberation of the circumstances in which bail should be withheld.
For most people the severity of the personal catastrophe of being incarcerated without trial is so great that it must be right that the presumption should be in favour of bail being granted. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Bill spells


it out clearly. I know that in part this was done in the 1967 Act, of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) spoke. But it related only to the more minor offences, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that it did not relate to the more serious offences or to bad offences. I welcome the fact that the Bill is all-embracing in criminal matters.
We have not heard very much today about the circumstances in which it is right, and the considerations which make it right, for magistrates to withhold bail. This short debate has been all about the catastrophe represented by somebody going into prison without a trial. I do not wish to pour cold water—

Mr. James Dempsey: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the circumstances in which magistrates in England grant bail but insist that if the sureties are Scots people they must travel to the nearest English town to provide that bail?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not want to prolong my speech by embarking upon that topic.
Whatever criterion for the granting or withholding of bail the House thinks it right to adopt should be genuine. It should not be applied cynically or in a manner which makes it impossible to fulfil.
Although we have not heard much about them in this debate, there are circumstances in which the need to protect the public makes it right that bail should be refused. We need only cast our minds back to highly-publicised cases such as a man granted bail after particularly notorious offences for which he has been arrested but not yet tried. He subsequently commits another offence and there is great public indignation. One understands why, and sympathises with it. Time and again the cry goes up, also well-publicised, "Why on earth did they let him out?"
That is the dilemma which magistrates face, and it is an important matter. Few things do more to undermine public confidence in our administration of justice than an instance of that kind. We are not so confident in the stability of our administration of justice or many other institutions that we can afford to

have them undermined gratuitously. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are circumstances in which it is right to withhold bail.
That brings me to the passage in the Minister of State's speech in which he said that the Government proposed to move an amendment to reinstate the word "probable" in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. That schedule deals with exceptions to the right to bail. It says:
The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail … would—
(a) fail to surrender to custody, or
(b) commit an offence while on bail, or
(c) interfere with witnesses".
I believe that the wording is right now, or very nearly right. It is certainly much better than it was when it included the word "probable", as it did when the Bill started its passage through Parliament.
The important point is that the concept of unacceptability, the forming of an unacceptable risk, enables the court to take into consideration the seriousness of the offence with which the man is charged and of any offence the court may think it likely he will commit if he is let out on bail. That is why it is better than the formula of "probable" and of "a serious risk". If it is said that there must be proof that it is probable that he will fail to surrender to custody, it is virtually impossible for magistrates to satisfy themselves of that. Therefore, they will be disentitled to withhold bail.
That would be a logical thing for the House to legislate if it took the view that there were no circumstances in which the public interest required bail to be withheld, but, for the reasons I have advanced, that would not be a realistic position to adopt. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about their intention to reinstate "probable". I know from another field that the Minister of State is a fairly determined operator when he has made up his mind. I hope that if the Government press on with their intention the amendment will be rejected.
The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington welcomed, as I do most warmly, the proposals for the extension of legal aid. He said that he understood that there were


economic considerations which made that a difficult matter. In so far as economic considerations are relevant to the question of legal aid, let it not be forgotten that it is very expensive to keep a man in custody. It may well be a very good bargain, if one looks at the matter solely with economic considerations in mind, to extend legal aid in every case where bail is in issue.
I welcome the clear statement in the Bill that there is a presumption that a man shall have bail, but it should be remembered that the administration of justice is a mortal institution and therefore one which will make mistakes. It is the job of everyone concerned with it to try to keep them to a minimum. I hope that magistrates and judges will not be deterred by the possibility of making a mistake, and of injustice resulting, from carrying out the other part of their duty—to secure in all appropriate cases the protection of the public.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to reply to some of the aspersions that he sought to cast. In his absence, I shall confine myself to a number of brief observations on the reckles and foolish charges that he made at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate on the question of bail has important consequences for Scots who have been apprehended in English courts pending bail, because Scottish sureties are not allowed to pay that bail in Scottish police offices—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Dempsey: The point of order is as follows: am I to take it that the debate is being wound up following the present contributor, or will it be possible to catch your eye a little later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the information of the hon. Member, I must inform him that the Bill does not apply to Scotland. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is not winding up. The debate is exempted

business, and the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) can speak until two or three in the morning if he so desires.

Mr. John: It may also help my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) to know that when I opened the debate I specifically mentioned that Clause 8(6) makes it clear that the procedure by which Scottish sureties have to travel to England is being changed by the Bill.

Mr. Dempsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.

Mr. Griffiths: There are some hon. Members in the House, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose rebukes I take seriously, but the hon. Member for Ormskirk is not among them. He knows a lot and talks a lot, but I am afraid that in his human relations in this House he displays a moral arrogance, a lack of humour and a carelessness for the truth, which will no doubt take him far on the left wing of his party, but will not stand him well among the sensible men in the Labour Government or, indeed, in the House as a whole. I only regret that he is not present in the Chamber, because I wanted to say these things to his face.
I wish to deal with three items, all of which begin with the letter "p". There is first a procedural point, secondly, a point of perspective, in regard to the Bill as a whole and, thirdly, a number of matters relating to the police.
On the point of procedure, I believe that it is an outrage to Parliament and to those who will be affected by the Bill that this measure has been brought on without notice and at the end of a long wrangle about another matter. As a result hon. Members have not been able to prepare themselves for this debate with the material that they need.
Furthermore, those who are affected by the Bill have not been able, because of the short notice, to bring to the attention of their parliamentary representatives material of significance—material that I am sure would have enriched our debates and, indeed, may have led the Government to reach different conclusions. That is wrong, and I hope that it will never happen again. If the Government run into a procedural muddle on one subject, that is no reason for their prejudicing debate on another


subject, on which they have given inadequate time for preparation. That attitude has denied certain people access to their members of Parliament, and as a result their views may not be made known during this debate on an important Bill.
I turn to the question of perspective. I recognise the value of the Bill. I shall support its Second Reading. But I believe that the priorities are all wrong. In short, I believe that more important matters dealing specifically with crime should be before the House today. This Bill seems to me to demonstrate that Parliament is getting out of touch, and certainly out of step, with public opinion and the true wishes of our constituents.
We find the same story running through nearly all our recent criminal legislation. It is the story of pressure groups, skilled propagandists and special pleaders. These groups appear to get their way despite the wishes of the vast majority of our people.
We have only to look back to what has happened to criminal legislation in recent years. What happened when Parliament abolished the death penalty? That took place not because of the wishes of the majority but because a minority convinced the House that it should be abolished. How did it happen that Parliament agreed that criminals should be paroled after serving a small proportion of their sentence? Was there a vast public demand for that course? I doubt it very much.
We now see the mounting campaigns aimed at lowering the age of consent in sexual cases, liberalising drug laws, irrespective of the dangers to young people, and permitting homosexuals to indulge themselves in public places. There is agitation to liberalise the sale and supply of pornographic literature and to permit the showing of pornographic films, and, indeed, to spend public money on introducing such material into every home in the country. The ordinary man see these things taking place and asks himself "Why is it that Parliament can find time to debate these strange matters but can find no time to tackle the real problems of crime?" That is why believe that the present Bill is out of step, and, indeed, out of tune, with public opinion.
How is it that today we can find time to deal with the Bail Bill when, at the same time, we have done nothing in a

parliamentary sense to discuss the conclusions of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which has recommended tightening up the trial procedures to make them less of a game, if I may so express it, between lawyers and more of an inquiry into the real truth? And how is it that we can find time to deal with this Bill and yet take no action to tighten up the legislation on firearms, particularly that relating to shotguns? There are many aspects of law and order which are of concern to our constituents, but I doubt very much whether the Bail Bill is the main matter in their minds.
I now wish to say a few words about the views of the police on this subject, and particularly the views of the Police Federation, with which, as the House knows, I have a connection. The police have a right to have their views heard on these matters, because they are in the front line. They have probably more to do with questions of bail than do any members of this House. It is the police who have to carry the scars of battle. I must tell the House that 12,000 policemen are injured every year, and that the police have to deal with 2 million indictable offences. It is the police who stand between violence and anarchy and the public. Therefore, what they have to say about this Bill is most important.
I hope that I can carry the Minister with me when I remind the House that the policeman sees the battered child not in the antiseptic atmosphere of a court of law but in the flesh or, indeed, in the blood. He sees the effects of crime on human beings, the drunken savagery that will leave many people, in any one year in our country, blinded or maimed, and children mutilated. The police see this in the flesh. Perhaps that conditions their attitude to what happens when violent men are brought before the law. All too often the police believe that there is an imbalance between the human misery created by crime and the way in which the offender is dealt with, by being bailed, under-sentenced or paroled too early.
In accepting the philosophy of the Bill I agree absolutely with the arguments and amendments made in another place. Specifically, I believe that the courts must be able to continue to refuse bail wherever, after hearing the prosecution


view, they believe that there is a significant risk—not just a a probable or unacceptable risk—of violent men being released to commit further violent offences. If there is any significant risk, it ought to be possible for a court to deny bail.
Equally, if there is a significant risk of an arrested person interfering with a witness by intimidation, once again the court ought to be entitled to refuse to grant bail.
It must also be right for the court to have regard to the seriousness of the offence. This is an amendment that was inserted in another place. As I understood the Minister's speech, the Government have no intention of altering that.

Mr. John: Except, to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, for such changes as are necessary to make the Bill conform to the "probable" rather than the "unacceptable" risk basis.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the Minister has intervened, because I did not entirely understand what he had in mind. No doubt in Committee the hon. Gentleman will be advancing his arguments for this change. I shall need to be convinced about this.
Let me put two specific examples. Suppose a woman is charged with having brought a rabid dog into the country. Suppose the charges against her require a good deal more evidence to be procured, and the woman seeks bail. Is the Minister satisfied that using his terminology of "probable" and the amendments that he proposes, it would be possible to deny bail to such a person if there were a risk that during the period of bail she might bring in another rabid animal? The Minister will understand the importance of taking every conceivable precaution against a foul disease of this kind. The hon. Gentleman must satisfy the House that in his own judgment the amendments that have been made and that he proposes will give adequate protection.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member is almost suggesting that whenever there is a risk that anyone may break the law he should be locked up before he can do so. Surely that is a completely new principle.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not say that. I said that if there is a significant risk of violence being committed while on bail, and if there is a significant risk—I am using the example of rabies—of a further offence being committed of such a serious nature that the court ought to have regard to the possibility, the Minister must satisfy the House that his amendments will take care of the situation. Rabies is a good example, because we all know the terrible nature of the disease. It must not be possible for anyone to be released on bail if there is the slightest chance that he will again bring a rabid animal into the country. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he is satisfied that his wording will cover that case.
The other example concerns State security. It may be that it would be wiser not to go into details. Is the Minister satisfied that his proposed wording will ensure that a court will be able to deny bail when evidence is put to the court by the police that during the time on bail State security may be jeopardised by the actions of the accused? I should be glad if the Minister would give me an assurance on that point, which I do not want to labour, because it is highly sensitive.
My third point on behalf of the police is that this Bill, almost inevitably, will add to their burden of work. The amount of additional paperwork is speculative, but the advice that I am given is that there is certain to be a great deal of it. The amount of police time that will be consumed is, I am advised, likely to increase greatly.
The amount of potential frustration of the police is much more difficult to measure, but I hope that the Minister will accept from me that there is now a morale problem among the rank and file in the police. Often they take great risks to apprehend dangerous, violent criminals and all too often they see that, in the first instance, such persons are bailed and then receive sentences that many—the majority of the public, as well as the police—regard as too lenient. These convicted criminals may also be paroled too rapidly, and go on to commit further crimes.
The Minister must realise that there is great sensitivity among the police on this issue. I hope that he will say that if the


Bill goes through, and with it the Bill setting up the Police Complaints Board, these measures will take their place within a more general pattern of the attempts to contain crime and violence.
The problem seems to be that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of reforming, liberalising and ameliorating the law, away from what the majority of our people and we on the Opposition side care much about, namely, the protection of society and the maintenance of law and order at this time—for seldom has it been so much at threat.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Charles Irving: I have sat through the whole of this debate so far and have been impressed by the sincerity of the speeches that have been made. I will not delve into the intricacies of the legal situation because there are many distinguished lawyers on both sides of the House who can deal with them. I want to say a word or two about the human situation.
The importance of the bail issue has never been better described than by Lord Hailsham when, speaking in 1971 as Lord Chancellor, he called the refusal of bail
the only example, in peacetime, where a man can be kept in confinement without a proper sentence following conviction after a proper trial. It is, therefore, the solitary exception to the Magna Carta.
A court's decision whether to grant bail can vitally affect on the one hand the individual's right to liberty and on the other the proper administration of justice and the protection of the public from people charged with serious offences.
No legislation which exposed the public to a real risk of serious crime by people on bail would be acceptable to the House, the public or any of the professions involved in the criminal justice system. But the report of the Home Office Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, on whose recommendation this Bill was based, showed that senior and representative members of those professions considered that some of those now being remanded in custody could be granted bail without any such risk.
The report, whose signatories included senior and representative police officers, magistrates and justices' clerks, stated:
We do not believe that the stage has yet been reached where those remanded in custody

form an irreducible minimum, none of whom could safely be released on bail.
Although, to our credit, we in this country have a smaller number of remand prisoners per 100,000 population than comparable industrialised Western States, our figures for remands in custody are still disturbing. There was a carefully-documented article in The Sunday Times, republished from the Law Society's Gazette, stating that 500,000 days a year are spent in prison by people accused of crimes for which they have not been tried or convicted.
In 1974, a total of 64,981 people were remanded in custody, of whom 2,100 were found not guilty, or whose cases were not proceeded with; 29,000 were given non-custodial sentences and only 26,000 received custodial sentences. Of course, the fact that an offender is eventually given a non-custodial sentence does not necessarily mean that it was wrong to remand him in custody, since different considerations apply at the remand stage from when the court passes sentence.
Even so, it must concern us that so high a proportion of people remanded in custody are not eventually sentenced to imprisonment. The Home Office recognised this in its Circular 155/75 on bail procedures, which said:
It is a cause for particular concern that defendants remanded in custody who do not ultimately receive a custodial sentence represent about one half of all defendants remanded in custody.
Why is this a cause for particular concern? Partly, of course, because of the sheer economic cost of locking people up who could safely be granted bail. In 1974, the cost of keeping someone in prison was £59 a week for a man, and £74 a week for a woman. According to a recent Parliamentary Answer by the Under-Secretary of State, for the financial year 1975–76 the estimated cost of running the prison system in England and Wales is £140 million. In addition, allied services incurred for prison purposes during the year are likely to amount to about £25 million and the capital expenditure on building and the purchase of plant to around £31 million. If we take all this expenditure into account, the average cost of keeping someone in prison in the financial year 1975–76 works out at the colossal—and I repeat "colossal"—figure of over £90 a week.
But the financial cost is only part of the story. We must not forget the human cost of unnecessary remands in custody. A defendant who is refused bail loses earnings if he was employed at the time of his arrest; he may well lose his job; he will also almost certainly fall behind with his rent, and since landlords cannot be expected to keep accommodation open for more than a few days, eviction may well follow; if he has a family, it will suffer both financially and emotionally as a result of his imprisonment.
But the further cost of unnecessary remands in custody is the stress and strain on the prison staff who have to work in our overcrowded prisons, and on the prisoners who are incarcerated in them. In 1975, remand prisoners constituted over 14 per cent. of the average daily prison population. Over the last decade the number of remand prisoners has increased even faster proportionately than the number of prisoners serving sentences. Overcrowding is particularly severe in prisons which receive people on remand.
To take one example—we have heard about it previously from the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)—Brixton Prison officially has accommodation for 649 inmates, yet in 1975 its average daily population was 960. At one point during the year its population reached the appalling figure of 1,090.
The stresses and strains of overcrowding cannot be under-estimated, and the current public expenditure restrictions have made the situation even worse.
The Sunday Times said this on April 11th:
Fresh outbreaks of violence in goals are feared by prison officers because prisoners are facing longer hours locked up in their cells and are having their privileges cut. This results from a cost saving edict by the Home Office that the overtime worked by prison officers is cut by 10 per cent., saving £2 million a year. The prison service is some 20 per cent. undermanned, and only exceedingly long overtime has kept the prisons running.… The overtime cuts, which came into effect on 1st April, have already meant some prisoners being locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day. At Winson Green, Birmingham, prison officers say that nearly 1,000 men have been affected in this way…'If staff are not available, then the least essential parts of the regime have to be axed', the Home Office said.
At the big remand prisons, including Brixton and Holloway in London, and Winson Green

in Birmingham, the primary function was to serve the courts. In these places, the opportunity to work could be axed in some circumstances, as well as sport and recreational facilities. But there is nothing new about a prisoner spending 23 hours a day in his cell ', the Home Office added.
That is quite true, but to me it is tragic, and I welcome and support whatever steps we take with regard to the Bail Bill. Any legislation which, while maintaining real protection for the public from those accused of serious offences, attempts to minimise the financial and human cost of unnecessary remands in custody must surely be welcomed.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I was very pleased to hear the Minister state that there would be provision in the Bill to deal with the changing procedures in the payment of bail. This is very important to Scots people. It may be that some right hon. and hon. Members will be wondering why I have intervened in the debate. The reason is very clear. We have already had some experience of the very unfair operation of the English law as it applies to Scots people.
A constituent of mine was released from a court in Essex on the understanding that bail would be paid and that the surety would be the parents. When it came to the payment of that bail, a local police office refused to accept it, having been told that a Scots police office had no authority to accept bail due in an English court. The two parents, my constituents, had to motor all the way to Carlisle, 100 miles there and 100 miles back, in order to deal with the problem of guaranteeing the surety and depositing, the bail to ensure that their son would be released from custody at a court in Essex. When they got to Carlisle they were kept in the station for nearly five hours, only to be told that not even there could the bail payment be accepted. They were sent back to Airdrie.
It was at that stage that they contacted me. I, in turn, made representations to the office of the Home Secretary. In that connection, I should like my hon. Friend to convey my personal gratitude to the official who dealt with the problem for me. The upshot was that the parents were again asked to go back to


Carlisle where, on this occasion, their surety was accepted, following which they returned again to Airdrie. It meant that they had travelled 400 miles before their surety was accepted for their own son.
In fairness to the Carlisle police, they apologised courteously for their failure to accept the surety on the parents' first visit. However, I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland and asked him to consult the Home Secretary and his team of Ministers about this unacceptable provision in English law, whereby bail, once fixed, no matter what the circumstances, can be paid only in an English authority office—either the court or the police office.
This, of course, is a tremendous disadvantage to Scots people. As I pointed out, it cost my constituents 400 miles of petrol, two days' loss of work, the time involved, considerable inconvenience, the expense of buying meals, and so on, when the whole matter could have been resolved by the law permitting them to deposit their surety for their son at the local police office.
The Minister may be surprised to hear of a case of that nature. I merely remind him that, although my constituents may belong to a country called Scotland, they are United Kingdom citizens. They pay their taxes in this country, they work for this country and, when the necessity arises, they fight for this country. In my view, it is completely unacceptable to treat citizens of this country in that fashion.
I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be a serious omission in the English system for the payment of bail. I understand that conditions are bound to be laid down by the appropriate magistrates, and I also appreciate that legal techniques are different from those applying in Scotland. But I cannot understand, why, in circumstances like those affecting the case of my constituents, English law cannot be adjusted so as to enable a Scot to be accepted as surety for a member of the family who has been released on nail and to enable him to deposit that surety in the police office nearest to his place of residence.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to this invidious situation and to express the hope that, in Committee, there will be a detailed discussion of what is happening in such cases.
The Minister talks of changing procedures. I hope that in future any changes will mean that Scots people will be spared the inconvenience and cost of having to travel to the nearest England town to deposit bail as surety for some member of the family, for some friend, or for some other person who has been released on that condition by an English court.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will have consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to looking more fully into this matter and discussing it with the Home Secretary in the hope that we can arrive at a much better provision and a more acceptable arrangement for the payment of bail by Scottish sureties on behalf of people who have been charged with offences in English courts.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly and give a general welcome to the Bill. In doing so, I reiterate my concern that we are taking this Bill in this way today. I did raise a point of order with Mr. Speaker, and made a protest, because I think it is totally wrong that a Bill of this nature should be brought on to the Floor of the House at the last moment, just because the Government got into difficulty over their programme of business today.
One of the consequences of this situation is that not only is one not prepared for the debate, but there are circumstances which mean that hon. Members cannot attend the whole debate. I had a meeting, which I could not avoid, at 5 o'clock, and I did not have an opportunity to hear either the Minister of State or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) speak in opening the debate. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will forgive me if I cover matters that have already been raised, cir ask questions with which he has dealt already. It is not my fault that I could not be here.
In 1970, when I was a Minister in the Home Office, we looked at the general question of the prison population, which had reached about 40,000 a year. I remember that at an early meeting the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office told me that we should consider that part of the population which had not yet been sentenced. I remember thinking at the


time that there was very little hope of making much of an advance in reducing the population by dealing with those on remand. Not only was I proved completely wrong; I was surprised to learn—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has just pointed out—just how high a proportion of the daily prison population was either unconvicted or unsentenced. It runs to about 5,000 of the daily population.
The next thing I noticed was that this high proportion of unconvicted people in prison was put in those jails which were the most overcrowded—of necessity, the local prisons. Reference has been made to Brixton Prison, and one has only to look at the Ashford Remand Centre to see another example of overcrowding.
One has the problem of the size of the prison population, the fact that it is in the most overcrowded prisons, and also the fact that these are the prisons which are extremely hard on the number of staff they take up, because of the work that has to be done in taking those on remand back and forth to court. Therefore, many of the prisoners are in their cells for 23 hours a day, because they cannot be required to work and the limited number of staff available means that they must for long periods be locked in their cells.
All these factors add to the argument that one should, wherever possible, reduce to a minimum, at any one time, those in prison who are unconvicted. I think that the aim of keeping to the irreducible minimum the size of the population of those remanded in custody is one that hon. Members on both sides would support.
Although I welcome the Bill, I am bound to say that I do not believe that it will have a major effect. In practice, I think that courts already start, rightly, with the presumption that bail should be granted to those who are unconvicted or unsentenced. On the other hand, it is right that that presumption should be set out in the form that it is in the Bill. I add the suggestion that one might go further and suggest that where bail is refused, the court should give its reasons for refusal. I think I am right in saying that this point is not covered by the Bill at present.

Mr. John: indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise if it is covered. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the point when he replies.
In a way, I was responsible for setting up the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, out of which the Bill has now appeared. That is why I am glad to give it a general welcome.
I should like to ask the Minister certain questions about other experiments to reduce the remand population that have been started by the Home Office in recent years. What is happening about bail hostels? Many people have been and are still remanded in custody because they have no home to which to go. We need a wider provision of bail hostels. What up-to-date figures can the Minister give us on the experiment started in 1971 for the provision of bail hostels?
What has happened with the experiment that was started so that those who are remanded for medical reports would undergo medical examinations as outpatients either at hospitals or in the prisons themselves? Is that working? Are people still being remanded for medical reports, or are more being dealt with on an out-patient basis?
It seems to me that if a medical report is required, it is never a good reason to remand a person in custody for that report if there is any other way in which the report can be provided. I hope that that is another matter that will be looked at during the passage of the Bill.
I have said that the Bill will not have any earth-shattering results. I do not think that we shall vastly reduce the number of those remanded in custody, but I think that the Bill will help. We ought not to get too upset about the fact that a proportion of those remanded in custody are ultimately acquitted. That is always bound to happen, for reasons that have been pointed out. The grounds for remanding in custody are subject to a test completely different from that in relation to the eventual acquittal of the individual. Nor should we place too much store on the fact that a high proportion—about 50 per cent. or so—of those remanded in custody eventually finish up with a non-custodial sentence.
We must face the fact, as a practical issue in the courts every day, that often for those who are remanded for sentence


to the higher court, the only thing that one has left to say there on behalf of the individual is that he has been in prison for about four weeks awaiting sentence. It may be that factor that influences the judge most of all in deciding ultimately, in a borderline case, that he need not impose a custodial sentence. Therefore, the fact that every remand in custody does not end with a custodial sentence does not necessarily mean that in every case the magistrates were wrong to remand in the first place.
That having been said, we still have a duty to keep to a minimum the number of the remand population, because of the cost, the conditions, and, of course, the human effects that being in prison has on someone who is unconvicted. If we are to reduce the daily remand population we must consider not only the cases remanded but also the length of time for which each person is remanded.
Substantial progress has been made in the past five to seven years in reducing the waiting period for those in custody before trial. Can the Minister give us any figures of the up-to-date position? My recollection was that it was good in the rest of the country, but still pretty bad in the London area. Have there been improvements? Is everything possible being done to bring forward the trials of those remanded in custody at the earliest possible moment?
I hope that the Minister will resist the suggestion—currently being widely reported—that some presumption of bail before sentencing should apply to those who give notice of their intention to appeal against conviction. That would be disastrous. We have already removed from the Court of Appeal any power to increase sentences, with the result that there is very little disincentive for anybody to appeal to the Court.
The Court of Appeal has been inundated with work, and this lengthens the waiting time for meritorious appeals. The suggested presumption would increase enormously the number of people who would submit appeals because they wanted a few weeks on bail before starting their sentences, and would increase unacceptably the volume of unmeritorious work in the Court of Appeal.
On the amendment to the schedule to which the Minister referred, I believe

that the words that have come from another place are considerably better than the words that went there. We cannot forget that this is a question of balance between the rights and freedom of the individual and the duty of courts to protect society.
In our desire to see that the remand population is kept at an irreducible minimum, let us make sure that we do not go so far that we reach the situation that exists in many American cities, in which policemen tell stories of picking up armed robbers one day and shooting at them—while they are committing other offences after being let out on bail—the next day.
There is bound to be a responsibility to remand some cases in custody, and the words in the schedule are about right.
Having read the working party report with interest, I welcome this Bill, which has resulted from it. I hope that it will help to reduce the remand population of our prisons.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not welcome the Bill. I do not welcome any legislation which will not remedy positive evil or do positive good. We spend too much of our time churning out legislation which will not achieve anything very much.
The Bill is unnecessary and it is a pity that it has been slipped in today for the convenience of the Government, who are going through an embarrassing time. It is not good enough to treat a matter which involves the liberty of the subject with such scant respect as has been achieved by slotting in the Bill to fill in the business for today. A number of my hon. Friends who would have wanted to take part in the debate had already been committed elsewhere and have been unable to take part. I have had to play truant on a Select Committee which is discussing an important matter because I happened to think that it was more important for me to be present in the Chamber. It is a choice that should not have been presented to us.
It is well known that constituents and interested parties keep the correspondence which they send to Members to the very last minute before a Bill is discussed so it is in the forefront of our


minds and does not get lost beneath a stack of papers. There is a real point made by so many of my hon. Friends—namely, that what has happened will derogate from the value of this Second Reading debate.
The hon. Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that the Bill could have been debated at an earlier stage, but the liberty of the subject should not be discussed in some Second Reading Committee. That is what would have happened if the Opposition had not insisted on the Bill being debated in the Chamber. Of course, we did not insist that it should be debated in these circumstances. However, as we have to have the Bill and today's debate, there are one or two points that I must make. I shall be brief because much has been said and there is not a great deal more that can be said very eloquently.
Some of the measures contained in the Bill merit support—for example, the legal aid provisions, the putting of reasons in writing, coroner's powers and a number of other matters. But most of those measures could have been achieved by administrative action. Possibly the introduction of the offence of failing to surrender provides a tidier way of dealing with the absconder than the recognisance system, but that has not been proved to anybody's satisfaction as being a likely benefit of any great substance to the law.
I am concerned that there might be people outside this place who hope too much of the Bill, who hope that it will do something substantial. To some extent, some of the things that have been said as a prerequisite for supporting the Bill are misapprehensions. For example, it is said that 20,915 people who were remanded in custody were subsequently not given prison sentences, as though that is necessarily an injustice which has been caused them. But that is not so. Most of those cases, perhaps all of them, might have been matters in which the judge or magistrates considered prison appropriate, but as the short remand had had an effect upon the defendant it was found not necessary to pass a prison sentence, bearing in mind the need not to clutter up the prisons with people who might have learnt a lesson through a short remand in custody. The sum total of that

action might have been of some benefit to the accused.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the 20,915 there was a substantial number of people who could not have been given prison sentences if proved guilty? Therefore, for the magistrate or anyone else to suggest that they were not given prison sentences because they were remanded in custody would in effect, be getting round the law.

Mr. Lawrence: If that had happened in a substantial number of cases it would have been wrong. However, the hon. Gentleman has given no figure for those who ought not to have been remanded in custody. I see the Minister of State shaking his head.

Mr. John: I was merely wishing to say to the hon. Gentleman that he has given no figures to substantiate his statement that it was the effect of short remands that led to non-custodial sentences.

Mr. Lawrence: I cannot give any figures, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I had been a daily practitioner in the criminal courts for 13 years before I came to this place. In the course of my career, I must have made hundreds of applications for bail. Therefore, I have experience of the way in which I, as an applicant for bail on behalf of countless accused persons, have reacted to the decision taken by the court. The Minister may accept that or not. In some ways, it is perhaps better than a statistic; we contribute the benefit of our own experience and knowledge where we can.
A second matter that has been raised as a basis for the Bill is that 2,101 people were subsequently found not guilty. The Minister's predecessor, in an Answer to me, said that in 1974 no fewer than 52 per cent. of people who were tried before juries in the Crown courts, having pleaded not guilty, were acquitted. On the basis that most of those people were highly unlikely to have been innocent, my conclusion is that if the guilty people had to serve only a period on remand in custody, they were lucky.
No one should be left with the impression that the Bill is likely to have much effect on the 51,422 people who were


remanded in custody. The law on the question of when bail is to be refused will not be changed substantially or at all by the Bill. All that is happening is that statutory effect is being given to what is a presumption of bail in practice in our courts at present. Whatever may have happened in years past, magistrates, after the 1967 Act, and judges do appreciate the undesirability of unnecessarily remanding people in custody. Therefore, the practice is to grant bail, and the requirements are clearly laid down in the 1967 Act. The practice in the Crown court is to grant bail unless there are substantial objections—for example, that the accused is likely to interfere with witnesses, to abscond, or to commit further offences.
Bail is usually treated as a matter of common sense. Nothing in the Bill will alter the need to apply common sense, nor is it in any sense desirable that it should. Those of us who practise in the Crown courts know that bail applications are simple, speedy matters in which the judge who is a practitioner of experience applies his mind to the essence of the question. It would be seldom, in my view, that persons who are likely to be granted bail under this Bill would not already be granted bail under the present system.
The Government are taking this opportunity to present a clear statement of the grounds for refusing bail. However, they have made a somewhat clumsy effort in Schedule 1. If what is needed is to provide everybody with a clear statement which can be seen and understood of the grounds for not granting bail, Schedule 1 is not clear enough. I submit that it is not necessary to use the phrase "unacceptable risk" or "probable". It is better that we use the phrase that was used in the 1967 Act
where it appears to the court that … he is likely to commit an offence".
That broad definition will avoid all kinds of legal arguments about the meaning of "probable" and "unacceptable risk" and the necessity of producing lots of books to argue about it. It might be simpler for a list of the exceptions to be clearly set out. The first is where it appears to the court that he is unlikely to surrender to his bail because (a) he has no fixed abode, or because (b) of the seriousness of the

offence and the likely sentence, or because (c) of his character and antecedents, or because (d) his previous history in regard to bail.
The second is where it appears to the court that he is likely to commit an offence whilst he is on bail; thirdly, where it appears to the court that he is likely to interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice; fourthly, where it appears to the court that he should remain in custody for his own protection; and fifthly, where the court is satisfied that it has not been practicable to obtain the necessary information. If they were listed in that way, the position would be clear to everybody.
There is one point that I consider to be of great importance. The nature and strength of the evidence is a matter that ought to be considered by the court considering bail, and that is a welcome addition to the Bill. It ought always to have been the law, and there is clear authority for saying that the nature of the evidence is a matter that ought to be considered.
Unfortunately, I had one experience of a case in which a senior police officer went into the witness box and said that he wanted a remand in custody, and when I asked what was the nature of the evidence, he said "I would rather not say". The stipendiary magistrate said "If the chief of police says that he would rather not say, that is good enough for me". I said "It is not good enough for me because, as I understand it, the law is that there must be some justification for arresting a man and keeping him in custody".
One must be forgiven for suspecting that what might have happened there was that a man against whom there was no evidence at all was arrested by the police in the hope—and the hope may have been fulfilled in this case—that once he was arrested a number of witnesses would come forward to give evidence. When the matter went to the Divisional Court, I was told that it was all academic since by the time it took me to get to the Divisional, Court witnesses had come forward with evidence.
That is obviously an undesirable situation, and I do not think it happens very often. This may have been a one-off out of hundreds of thousands of cases. It was a matter of a serious crime which


was causing a great deal of general concern. But obviously, if we can stop that from ever happening again by putting this provision in the Bill that is desirable, although I do not think that that example is sufficient reason for introducing legislation.
As long as there is a provision that bail need not be given, whether the test is unacceptable risk or probability, only because the accused has no fixed address, this is an undesirable factor. It is probably the principal reason why our prisons are cluttered with persons who would otherwise get bail, and I hope that the Minister will use the powers of Sections 48 and 49 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1971 which enable the Government to spend money to provide more bail hostels. I trust that there will be a satisfactory answer to the question posed on those lines by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).
Bail presents society with a considerable ideological problem which is simply postulated in this way: if everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty, why do we put people in prison when they are presumed innocent?
That is a difficult question to answer directly, but one can avoid it and say that four practical situations at least are clear: first, that it would be nonsensical to release some accused persons whom the police after great trial and risk to life and limb have finally apprehended; secondly, that it would be nonsensical, and the public would think it to be nonsensical, if people who were known to the police to be likely to go on committing crime—for example housebreaking—were granted bail to be able to do so; thirdly, that it is important that the conditions of custody must be decent and tolerable at all times—and I share some of the criticisms that have been made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and others; and fourthly, that the consequences of remand in custody must be recognised by everybody to be so catastrophic for prisoners who may not, when the truth is eventually known, deserve to have been in custody—catastrophic for their families, their work, their position in society, and even in many cases for the adequate preparation of their defence.

Apart from clarifying the principles upon which bail is granted, and setting them out in this Bill, if we are to have it, we should think a little further about improving the consideration of bail along the lines suggested by the Society of Conservative Lawyers in 1971—namely, that the accused should have his right to liberty examined with the same care before trial as his plea of innocence during the trial. The society recommended that:
Courts could be provided with a universal questionnaire to cover all these matters. In busy courts the possibility of using special bail officers to collect essential information should be considered. A certain way of reducing the number of remand prisoners is to see that the courts have all the relevant facts for a decision of bail. The court must not be left to rely, as so many are, merely upon the favourable or unfavourable advice of the prosecution.
I know that an administrative direction has gone round and that, to some extent, it is being implemented, but here is an opportunity to make it a statutory requirement. Perhaps the Minister will look further into that.
We are passing legislation which I believe to be unnecessary. In contrast with so many of the Government's Bills, which will do a great deal of harm, I do not think that this Bill will do any particular harm. I just do not think that it will do much good. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that our time could have been better spent than it has been spent this afternoon.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: It is entirely fitting that we should be discussing this Bill, which is concerned entirely with that most important of all matters—the liberty of the subject—on the day when Magna Carta has been so very much in our minds and on the very day when we presented a facsimile of it to our American cousins in the Great Hall of this Palace and such fine words have been spoken about it, in all sincerity. But it is outrageous that this debate should have been arranged at such short notice that, contrary to the spirit of that greatest of all charters of human liberties, we are precluded from discussing it properly, and—one has only to look at the House to realise this—many hon. Members have been deprived of the chance of being here. Many members of the public, and


public associations—for instance the Magistrates Association—which might have liked to be here, and others, like the Police Federation and members of the Criminal Bar working party, and so on, have also been deprived of the chance of being here.
It is right that the public should know why this has happened. I am perfectly conscious of the fact that the point I am making is a party political point. It is right that the public should know that this has happened because the Government managers, having got in a terrible muddle over their business, have chosen to force this Bill into the space vacated by their own errors, despite the fact that, by common consent, it is a very poor way of treating a measure of this importance.
What I have just said is intended to be a party political point, and a strong condemnation of the Labour Party. But having said that, I may say that there is nothing else in my remarks which has any party political content.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) has made it clear that we wholly subscribe to the underlying philosophy of the Bill. Certainly we shall give it a Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, we must be sure that we are doing something useful. I agree with him. Far too many measures do nothing useful, and only create problems. But I believe that this is a Bill by which we can do something useful, provided that we are careful and do not simply assume that by passing it, never mind in what form, it will do good. It will do good if we get the form right; it will do no good unless we do.
I want to sound a few notes of warning designed to contribute in the long run towards that end, and in three different fields. First, we must be careful how we talk about reducing the prison population. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is right to say that we must reduce it to the irreducible minimum, but how do we decide what is the irreducible minimum? We can do so only by getting the right balance between the liberty of the individual on the one hand and the protection of the public on the other. If that also produces a reduction in the prison population, well and good, but our aim in looking at the wording must

be to get that balance right and hope that it does in fact reduce the population, rather than to approach the matter the other way around.
Secondly, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has not found it possible to spend more than a minute or two in the Chamber since speaking. Many of us are conscious of the space that he has taken up with Written Questions and Answers on the Order Paper recently on matters relating to the prisons. One might have expected his interests to be sufficiently genuine to lead him to listen to what others had to say about it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept the point that my hon. Friend made at the start, that the way in which these proceedings have been put on today has caused many hon. Members inconvenience?

Mr. Carlisle: He said that it had not.

Mr. Percival: My hon. and learned Friend reminds me that that particular hon. Member said that it had not caused any inconvenience to him except that he had not had time to get hold of the many Written Answers that he has had from Ministers in recent months, so I think that my point is not a bad one.
However, I should have liked, in the hon. Gentleman's presence, to follow up some of the points put by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) about the figures of those who are remanded in custody but are subsequently not given a custodial sentence or are acquitted. One has to be careful in interpreting them either way. There is a tendency to believe that it is always harsh to remand a man in custody and kind to give him bail. Hon. Members should know that it is the experience of many of us that that is not always the case.
Like many others, I sit as a Recorder from time to time, and I know from experience that in many cases the worst thing that one can do for a man or woman is to turn him or her loose from the court there and then. If one is confronted with a man or woman with no fixed abode, accused of, say, shoplifting, with nowhere to go and not a penny in the world, what will happen if one


puts that person on bail at, say, 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon? Almost as sure as eggs are eggs, that person will be in trouble again by Monday. Could one expect anything else?
I have often been clear in my mind that I wanted to put a convicted person on probation but that I should not make the order until I knew where he would go when freed and so have postponed sentence and remanded him in custody for a few days for arrangements to be made for him. I do not consider it to be a kindness simply to mutter a few words to the prisoner in the box and to wish him good luck and turn him loose without knowing where he can go, what he can do and whether there is anybody to whom he can turn. I am now speaking at first hand. I know of many cases in which bail has been refused for that sort of reason—and a very good reason it is. The situation frequently arises, although no one can give the precise figures.
Further, if a man has been on remand in custody, that can and does often tip the scales. Instead of giving a custodial sentence, the court will often gladly agree that as the man has suffered imprisonment and has seen what the inside of a prison is like, it can then take the view that it is unnecessary to impose the custodial sentence which it might otherwise have felt to be necessary. No one knows the numbers, but that happens sufficiently frequently that every recorder and practising barrister that I know has had personal experience of such cases.
Of course the figures in the working party report should be viewed with concern. We must make as accurate an analysis of the figures as possible. But the inferences to be drawn from the figures are not all the same way. The people who draw the inferences all one way are not being fair or accurate. I accept that no one desires that. That is why I have spent a little time dealing with an aspect on which I do have first hand knowledge, as a person who has been called upon to decide many times whether bail should be granted.
I turn to the form of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that we should be careful

not to create more legal problems. I am glad that that observation was made by a layman, because as a lawyer I have been singing that song year in and year out. I have appealed time and again to Parliament to decide what it wants and then to say it in clear words. I have urged Parliament not to write into the statute book words that will surely raise more problems for the courts and lawyers.
Let us look carefully at the parts of the Bill where difficulties might arise. In considering Clause 4 and Schedule 1 we must bear in mind the twin objectives of deciding what is the right balance and, no less important, of using the correct words to give effect to it, so that we do not start an interminable series of new arguments on the meaning of the words used.
I hope that the House really does realise the importance, in the context of bail, of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged.
The working party, whose efforts everyone has rightly applauded, said:
The first factor which the court should consider is the seriousness and nature of the offence charged. It would be impracticable to divide offences so as to say that persons accused of certain offences should normally have bail and those accused of other offences should be remanded in custody, since many offences, such as theft and criminal damage, cover a very wide range of gravity and much depends on the circumstances of the individual offence.
There cannot be a catalogue of offences. But the report went on:
However, the more serious the offence charged, the stronger the temptation to abscond is likely to be, since a defendant who is liable, if convicted, to receive a long sentence of imprisonment has more incentive to abscond than one facing a less serious charge. Moreover, the more serious the offence, the smaller is the risk that can justifiably be taken either of the defendant's absconding or of his committing offences similar to that with which he is charged. Indeed, in our view there may exceptionally be occasions when all the circumstances of the case make the offence so grave and so shocking to public opinion that bail can properly be refused on this ground, even though the danger of absconding or of offences being committed if bail is granted is slight.
All those are cases which might excite the public comment to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) referred: "What on earth have they done allowing that man out?"
The working party continues:
We accept that usually the seriousness of the offence is closely related to the likelihood or otherwise of the defendant's answering bail.
Then we come to this important paragraph:
It seems to us, however, that cases can arise in which it is artificial to regard this only as an indication of the defendant's likely reaction to bail rather than as a reason in its own right for refusing bail.
As the Bill stands, one must go to three places in it before coming to the first reference to the gravity and nature of the offence. Clause 4 lays down the presumption that a man should have bail. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the exceptions. There is no reference in either of those to the gravity or nature of the offence. It is only when one comes to paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 that we find any reference to the gravity or nature of the offence, and then it is only a matter to be taken into account by the court in deciding whether one of the requirements of paragraph 1 is met. That is, the court is to ask "Do we think that because of the gravity or nature of the offence he is likely to fail to surrender to custody?" In the Bill as it stands we are doing exactly what the working party recommended we should not do. I hope that the House will carefully consider whether it cannot even now state this as a consideration to be borne in mind by the court directly as one on which it is entitled to refuse bail, instead of doing it in this convoluted way, contrary to the recommendations of the working party.
The working party of the Criminal Bar cited many instances in which, in its experience and opinion, there could be very serious offences in which there was in fact a very slight likelihood of the person concerned absconding, and therefore in which it would be highly artificial for the court to refuse bail because of the seriousness of the offence.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am following with fascination what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but surely the point is that the person concerned is presumed innocent. In using the word "offences", the hon. and learned Gentleman is presuming some guilt. Should he not put the word alleged "before "offences"?
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with a matter that so often arises in criminal cases, when the prosecution

brings a large number of charges, with the intention of making a deal with the defence outside the court to expedite the trial, and not with the intention of pressing all the charges?

Mr. Percival: If I had been as cautious in my language in this House as I would be in court, no doubt I would have referred to an alleged offence by the defendant. However, one deals with an offence that has been committed. Let us, for example, take the case of a murder—

Mr. Stonehouse: Or a suicide?

Mr. Percival: The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is now doing what he accuses lawyers of doing, namely, taking very fine points. Let us take a case in which somebody has suffered a violent death in circumstances which all point to its having been the result of a crime—perhaps not a murder, but a case of manslaughter. If in that case a person is charged with crime, the right way to describe the situation is to say that there has been a very grave and serious crime and then to add the words—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—"which it is 'alleged' this defendant has committed"
On the main part of his question, yes, there is an ideological difficulty, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton faced it squarely. If one had always to apply a presumption of innocence, everybody would be given bail. Equally, we know that that is not possible. That is why we all talk in terms of holding the balance—the balance between the right of an individual to enjoy his liberty on the one hand and, on the other hand, the protection of the public. One cannot ignore the latter.
My last point relates to Schedule 1. Many of us feel that, although the present form of Schedule 1, paragraph 1, may yet be open to improvement, the form introduced into the Bill by my noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in the other place, taken together with paragraph 7, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place, produces a much more satisfactory package than the Bill contained in its original form.
The Minister said that the Government intend to put paragraph 1 back in its


original form, that is, to reinstate probability as the test, though retaining the criteria set out in paragraph 7 in something like the form in which it originally existed.
I must stress that here we are dealing with a choice of words which determines the central issue in the Bill, i.e. the balance we strike between two conflicting interests.
I do invite the Minister's attention to what has been said by noble gentlemen of all and no parties in another place, including at least one Lord of Appeal, who expressed grave misgivings about the balance in the Bill so long as the word "probable" was used as the test. One senior member of the judiciary was quoted as saying that he found it difficult to visualise circumstances in which magistrates faced with such a test could grant bail, that is, if they had to be satisfied as to probability. It is too heavy a test. Hon. Members must try to put themselves in the position of magistrates considering how the police are faced with proof of that probability. It is no good saying "Oh well, the magistrate can wink a blind eye at that". If we put this provision into the Bill, that is the standard which the courts will have to apply.
I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that many voices, some with party connections, some with no such connections, have expressed considerable misgivings about the fact that in its original form paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 tilted the balance far too far in one direction. I earnestly ask the Minister, before the Bill goes into Committee, to reconsider his intention to revert to it.
If the Government were to stick to their intention I anticipate that there could be a substantial difference between the two sides, whereas if the approach were "Let us forget about that: it was not bad as a first attempt, but we are now satisfied that the balance was wrong, so we can rule it out, but we are not absolutely satisfied with what is now in the Bill, so let us get down to it and see whether we can improve paragraph 1" there would be every prospect that the Committee could settle down to the constructive task of doing its best to achieve what I am sure we all want, namely, the proper balance. It is something

that we must achieve if the Bill is to serve the purpose that we hope it will serve. With those reservations, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish the Bill well.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. John: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
This has been such a valuable and thoughtful debate—although right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have disclaimed the value of their contributions because of a lack of preparation—that I feel that it has been one of the best of its kind we have heard. Contributions have been made from a wide variety of experience and many points have been raised. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will understand if I say that many of those points will be pursued in Committee and that I cannot deal with them all now.
I thank the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) for his reference to the Vera experiment. I am glad to say that after the pilot scheme at Camberwell three courts are now operating this scheme. It is a valuable experiment which has had useful and beneficial results.
Much of the time today has been devoted to the argument of "unacceptable" v. "probable" as a form of words. I respond at once to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) by saying that since I was not the draftsman of this Bill I have no parental or proprietorial claim on the words. This enables me to think about the matters the hon. and learned Member has raised, without commitment but with a desire to reach the best formula we can devise to obtain the balance which he thinks is right. I must point out that "probable" is not a word entirely unknown to the law. It sets the tone that we want to accept, arising out of the working party report—namely that bail should be a right and that it should be an exception for it to be refused.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde was a little hard upon his noble friend Lord Hailsham when he said that the unacceptability test was unacceptable to his noble Friend. There has been a great division, not only between the two sides of the House on this issue but within the parties. Some see the


Bill as it is drafted, containing the unacceptability tests, as adequate and admirable while others say that it is inadequate and wholly unadmirable.
Dealing with the criteria in relation to paragraph 7, I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) who had difficulty in understanding the objections to this part of the Bill. The criteria are set out quite clearly in paragraph 1. The evidence necessary to support the criteria is contained in the regulations on the criteria in paragraph (7).

Mr. Edward Gardner: My objections are contained in paragraph 56 of the report of the Home Office working party, the first sentence of which sums up the whole matter.

Mr. John: I was about to deal with that point. I refer hon. Members to the summary of main conclusions in paragraph 185, which says:
There should be no change in the three established reasons for refusing bail, which are
those which are contained in paragraph 1 of the schedule. So I do not think that it quite bears the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to give it. Nevertheless, as I have said, and as Lord Wigoder has said from his very considerable experience, the seriousness of the crime of itself has never been an independent reason for refusing bail. Hon. Members will also understand and accept that there has been criticism of Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 on the ground of absence of criteria and absence of evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) raised the question of compensation. This point must be borne in mind, but whether it comes within the Long Title only the Committee stage will tell. But it would be a serious step and potentially very expensive.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was one of the few who, in a general welcome for the Bill, expressed some agnosticism. He has explained why he cannot be here now, and I fully understand that other matters are pressing. But the value of the Bill has been established notwithstanding certain dissenting judgments within the House. The general body of opinion has been that

the Bill is valuable, and I believe that it is no answer to say that one can substitute Government by legislation with Government by circular. That would be a wholly objectionable course of events, and I could well understand the hon. Gentleman making a passionate speech if it were to be done in that way.
The hon. Gentleman expressed certain concern, echoed by others, about the assimilation of the question of bail after conviction with the presumption of bail before conviction. In my opening speech I was clear about the Government's attitude—that they favour a presumption of bail in the specific circumstances where a convicted man was remanded for reports, and not only could bail be refused in the circumstances in which bail could be refused before conviction but also it could be refused in the circumstances where the magistrates had it in mind that they would probably imprison the defendant unless the reports indicated to the contrary, or unless it was impracticable to get a report in any other way. In other words, if the only practical way to get some report was to remand him in custody, they could do it then.
That was a specific and limited exception, and I would not want the House to be under any apprehension that the Government are giving a general welcome for assimilation of the criteria before and after conviction, and certainly they have made no proposal on the question of impending appeal.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about who fills in the information forms. He raised a point about whether the court staff did it or the probation officers. As far as we are concerned, that is a matter at the discretion of the court, and I hope that the most appropriate and efficacious means of getting the forms filled in would be taken by the court concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) raised a number of points. One of them concerned the creation of the new offence, and this was echoed by a number of my other hon. Friends. The working party, after much study of the position—the tribute paid to the care with which it approached it is well justified—came to the conclusion, as stated in paragraph 102 of the report, that it was necessary to have some sort of sanction in relation to failing to answer to bail, which the working party regarded


as a serious violation of the criminal process.
In addition to this, my hon. Friend mentioned that the fact that we have a good record in the matter of remands is no reason for complacency. He will acknowledge that I said that in my opening statement. There is no reason for us ever to be complacent, and the manner in which the Bail Bill approaches the question is evidence of this.
The question of legal representation is important. My hon. Friend will know that Clause 11 makes specific references to that matter and helps in that direction.
My hon. Friend also raised centrally the question of the Children and Young Persons Act and the question of remand to adult prisons and to what he called children's prisons. If bail helps generally, it will also help children and young persons in those circumstances, but I think he goes much to far in saying that moral welfare does not enter into it. Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act lays this down, and the question of moral welfare has been demonstrated in the "Johnny Go Home" programme shown fairly recently.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is for the welfare, moral or otherwise, of a school child that it should be put into prison?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend uses the term "prison" in a very wide sense. I am saying that we cannot rule out prison entirely, although we hope that all means or measures would be taken to avoid it.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I emphasise that Clause 8(6) of the Bill deals with Scottish sureties.
I come to the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I will not, if he will forgive me, deal with the rather Stromboli-like eruptions to which he gave vent at various points in the debate but rather with the serious points which he made about the Police Federation. He will know that representations were made to the working party by the Police Federation.
No representations have been made to the Government by the Police Federation

since the publication of the Bill, but there were on the working party two very distinguished policemen, the Chief Constable of Leeds and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Therefore the police interest was not ruled out. It was not a working party report which came, as it were, from the hothouse of inexperience. It was tempered with the experience of serving policemen.
The hon. Gentleman asked about rabies and about State security. The same criteria apply there. He asked whether I was satisfied that my formula would work. Subject to the natural caveat of the lack of absolute dogmatism that I have shown in answer to the Opposition Front Bench, certainly I am satisfied.

Mr. Percival: Does the Minister not appreciate that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) complains about is the haste with which this matter has come on and that those who had the chance to present their views beforehand have not had the chance to listen to the debate?

Mr. John: That is a refinement which was not at first made. I understand the point now being made, and I make no comment on it save to say that, if the complaint were, as it were, the question of representations, the position is quite clearly as I stated it.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) directed a series of questions to me, and I shall try to answer them as briefly as possible. If he will refer to Clause 5(3) and (4), he will see that the reasons need to be in writing. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about bail hostels. There are five bail hostels and 30 probation hostels which have space for some people on bail.
Next the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about out-patient examinations in prison. These are currently running at four prisons at the moment. There have been a number of appointments, but there are some vacancies, and we hope that increasing use will be made of these facilities.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised one problem which underlies a lot of the concern in this House. It is that many


people have to wait many weeks on remand before they achieve trial. I cannot give precise figures in the confined situation in which we are at the moment, but the position is undoubtedly worse in London than in the rest of the country. Roughly, the time awaiting trial is about 14 weeks in London and eight to 10 weeks elsewhere. We have tried more judges and the provision of more court rooms to cut this down but, unfortunately, there has been an increase in indictable crime which has prevented major improvements in that regard.
At several stages, we have been counselled not to claim too much for this Bill. Certainly nothing that I have said has made any exaggerated claim for it. What I have said is that the Bill, with its enshrinement of the principle that a person is entitled to bail unless there are exceptional reasons, is an important one to put in a statute.
It will be a valuable Bill, and the Committee stage can perform a valuable function in this regard in scrutinising it carefully. I commend it to the House as

being a measure which will do good. It is not a neutral measure. It is a measure for the better in our penal policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BAIL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in relation to bail in criminal proceedings in England and Wales, to make it an offence to agree to indemnify sureties in criminal proceedings, to make provision for legal aid limited to questions of bail in certain cases and for legal aid for persons remanded in custody for inquiries or reports, to extend the powers of coroners to grant bail and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. John.]

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill has been widely debated in another place and in the Press. It will give effect to the Government's undertaking to establish a public lending right for the authors of books. The new right will entitle authors to payment from public funds for the use made of their books when they are borrowed from public libraries.
In this country we borrow more than 600 million books each year from more than 6,000 points of issue. About £20 million is spent each year on 13 million books to replenish and improve library stocks.
The difficulty that we have to tackle in this Bill is that at present the author receives only the royalty to which he is entitled for each copy purchased, whether it is purchased by a private individual who puts it on his shelves or whether it is

purchased by a public library which lends it out again and again over a period which may be anything up to 10 years.

I think that there is general agreement that something should be done to remedy this state of affairs. But there are a number of technical problems involved. Many possible solutions have been put forward. One is that when each book is borrowed a stamp should be purchased or some other small payment should be made for the benefit of the author. While it is easy to imagine this happening at the level of the branch library, the problem is one of detail, and, even more, one of the cost of administration of any such scheme. We have hundreds of millions of borrowings, and thousands of borrowing outlets.

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made and Question put, That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 12.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pardoe, John


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Parry, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Conlan, Bernard
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
MacCormick, Iain
Snape, Peter


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Doig, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tomlinson, John


Flannery, Martin
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Ward, Michael


Freeson, Reginald
Newens, Stanley
Watkinson, John


Freud, Clement
Noble, Mike
Watt, Hamish


Golding, John
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)




Whitehead, Phillip
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wigley, Dafydd
Woof, Robert
Mr. David Stoddart and


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E)
 Mr. Alf Bates.


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)






NOES


Bottomley, Peter
Mudd, David



Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mr. Iain Sproat and


Durant, Tony
Tebbit, Norman
 Mr. Roger Moate.


Lawrence, Ivan
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly agreed to.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill we are discussing has been promoted over many years by interested parties, some of whom—with financial interests—sit in this House. Some have written books, some have not.
Should persons with such an interest, since it is not declared in the Register of Members' Interests, speak or vote without declaring an interest in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. There has arisen a convention in the House that hon. Members should declare such an interest in debates. Personal interest in votes on questions of public policy is covered in "Erskine May", as is the more hypothetical question raised by the hon. Member. At this hour of the night, I should be unpopular if I read pages 407 to 412 inclusive of "Erskine May", but I hope the hon. Gentleman's point has been met.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you are quoting from the old edition of "Erskine May"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is erroneous in his impression. I am quoting from the new edition.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you and the Clerk's department on having a copy before it is published. Even when the new edition

was being written, the House had not reached its recent decision on registering interests—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I can help the hon. Member. To my certain knowledge, there has been a copy of the new edition in the Aye Lobby for a number of weeks. If the hon. Member cares to direct his attention to page 412 of the new edition of "Erskine May" he will see that paragraph F refers to the Declaration of Personal Pecuniary Interests and the House of Commons' Register.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not correct to suggest that hon. Members who have written books have not declared their interest. I have entered in the Register of Interests my occupation as an author. It was the only other occupation I could find. I entered that interest in the full knowledge that virtually all my books are out of print.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

Mr. English: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not impugn personally any individual hon. Member. I think that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will be aware that I was not referring to him. He will be aware that certain people who have written books have not registered that fact in the Declaration because they are not required to do so. That is no fault of theirs, because they are not required to make the declaration. I raise the matter to ask whether they should declare an interest if they speak subsequently in the debate. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has written a book.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, most certainly they should declare an interest.

Mr Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whichever edition of "Erkine May" one consults, will you confirm that any interest declared in the Register does not remove from any Member who speaks in a debate the obligation of declaring a practical interest in the matter being considered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that point. Miss Jackson.

Miss Margaret Jackson: As I was saying, there is no doubt that, although many suggestions have been made for a variety of schemes involving public lending right, it is easy to see that the costs of administering so complex a scheme could easily outweigh any potential advantages either to the community or to authors of any payments which could be made. The whole task of the Government in preparing for the Bill has been to find a practical scheme which can work within existing knowledge, and to go for that as a real contribution to the problem. Moreover, we take the view that payments to authors should be dealt with on the same basis as assistance to other forms of the Arts—namely, that it should be a charge on my noble Friend's resources for the assistance of the Arts.
Both the providers of library services—the local authorities—and users can therefore be assured that they will not have to bear the costs of operating the scheme, and that these will rank with other forms of assistance to the Arts as and when resources can be made available.

Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but will she make it clear whether she has an interest to declare as the author of what she is reading to us, or has it been written by somebody else?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Miss Jackson: I am sorry if this comes as a dreadful shock to the hon. Gentleman, but I actually wrote my speech. I realise that Conservative Members are accustomed to having a vast retinue of people, and need them, to help them com

pose their speeches, whereas my hon. Friends and I are accustomed to having to help ourselves.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has referred to the cost of administering the scheme, but will she tell us what proportion of total expenditure will go to authors and what proportion will be involved in administrative expenses?

Miss Jackson: It might have been better if my hon. Friend had waited until we got a little further on in the debate. I do not think I can give him any clear figures. It is being suggested that quite a high proportion, perhaps 40 per cent., of the sums involved initially will account for administration. As my hon. Friend will realise, the initial cost of establishing such a scheme is likely to be very high. It is only when or if additional money becomes available that it will be possible to distribute more to authors. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to return to that matter later in the debate. To ensure that the costs of administration are capable of being met from the scheme, a basic principle of the Bill is that these costs shall be a first charge on the additional resources available. It is therefore of extreme practical importance that these costs shall be kept to the minimum so that the maximum amount can be made available for distribution to authors.
I now turn to the main features of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes a public lending right as a right of authors to be paid out of a central fund on certain books lent by public libraries in the United Kingdom—books which, by their appearance on the register, entitle the authors to public lending right. The clause also provides for the appointment of a registrar to administer the scheme.
Clause 2 establishes the central fund out of which public lending right will be paid. This clause places an upper limit of £1 million on the annual liabilities of the fund. The Government must require—indeed, it is a principle of sound finance, apart from protecting other demands on resources for the Arts—that the scheme shall not be open-ended and that Parliament maintains firm control over the total resources devoted to the scheme. However, there is provision in Clause 2(3) for my right hon. Friend the Secretary


of State, with the consent of the Treasury and, of course, of this House, to increase the limit by order.
I now come to one of the more unusual features of the Bill.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Could my hon. Friend tell me what the Government calculate will be the average annual amount which will be received by each author from the central fund?

Miss Jackson: That is not an easy calculation to make, as my hon. Friend may know. I am aware that my noble Friend quoted some figures in another place. This will depend on when the scheme is introduced and what the administrative costs turn out to be. It is difficult to look too far into the future. If my hon. Friend wants the figures, I will endeavour to get them for him later.

Mr. Clement Freud: That is an unsatisfactory answer. Will the hon. Lady consider the question put to her by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)? The answer is simple. If there is an upper limit of £1 million and it is expected that 40 per cent, will be paid for administration, it should not be too difficult to work out the average sum per author.

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the case. It is posible to work out the overall sum available to authors on the assumption of the expected administrative costs. My hon. Friend was asking what was likely to be the average return per author. It is not a matter of dividing the number of authors into the amount available. It is possible that, on the present size of the fund, the more popular authors will obtain sums of about £100 a year and that less popular authors will receive about £10 a year. The amount involved depends on whether the final scheme adopted has a ceiling for the amount of income might be involved, whether it is a tapering scheme, or whatever. These matters will be considered later in committee.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Lady. Lord Goodman, speaking in the other place, calculated that approximately 113,000 authors would claim and that the average payment would be £5 a year. That, even

by my frugal standards, is not a very large sum.

Miss Jackson: I did not say that it was a very large sum. I said that it was difficult to calculate. The amount will vary enormously depending on the popularity of the author. I gave a figure of about £10 for authors in the medium range, not authors whose books are borrowed over and over again. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is considering figures of the same order. I cannot say that I am tremendously grateful to him for his help, but I am sure that the House is.
Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to prepare the draft of a scheme for the administration of public lending right to be laid before Parliament. The reason for this way of proceeding is that, as has been made plain in the debate, a large number of detailed arrangements will have to be made before we can have an operational scheme for paying public lending right. These involve not merely the nature of the equipment required to measure the books but the way in which returns will be made to establish the entitlement of payment, the working out of the sample of libraries selected for measuring the right, and the way in which the expenses of the local authorities are paid. The Government believe that the time is ripe to establish the right and work out the consequential details against the day when we all hope resources will be available.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The Minister in the other place, Lord Donaldson, promised a Green Paper, a discussion document, in advance of publication of the scheme. When are we to have that?

Miss Jackson: Since the debate in the other place was a couple of days or perhaps a week ago, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is not expecting a Green Paper the day after tomorrow. My recollection of what my noble Friend said was that we would seek to have the fullest possible consultation on the detailed form of the scheme. He thought that one way that might be appropriate was to publish a Green Paper, but I do not recall that he gave any indication of time, and I do not feel that I can do that now.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Lord Donaldson did give an undertaking to publish a discussion document in advance of the scheme.

Miss Jackson: Yes, but, as I have not given an indication, and do not propose to do so, of how the scheme will be worked out, because this will depend on when resources will be made available—and no time has been stated for that—the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give a date for publication of a discussion document. If Conservative Members will be a little more patient, we might come to this question again in the course of the debate.
Clause 4 provides for the establishment of the register which will be the evidence on whether the lending of a particular hook will earn public lending right and to whom payment is due. The onus will be on the applicant to furnish proof of his claim to the satisfaction of the registrar, who will be charged with the duty of establishing and maintaining the register in accordance with the scheme.
It is the Government's intention to conclude the necessary work on the negotiations and consultations needed to prepare the scheme as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law. My noble Friend has made it clear that he will spare no pains to ensure that before the scheme is laid before the House both the research and the consultations will be carried out.
I now turn to two points which gave rise to amendments to the Bill in another place. These relate to the use of the word "works" in place of "books" throughout the Bill. The intention behind this amendment is one with which the Government have considerable sympathy; namely, to ensure that the new techniques of communication between authors and the public, with which public libraries are becoming increasingly involved, should not be excluded by the Bill. Against this, however, I must make it clear that the Government see no way of producing a practical scheme to give effect to this change in the foreseeable future. We see no way by which works other than books which are borrowed can be recorded and their use measured on a statistically justifiable basis at reasonable cost, and we take the view that it would be totally irresponsible to legislate for a purpose for which no practicable

scheme seems to be possible at present.
The intention is to devise in this scheme the cheapest form of statistical sample of lending which can be justified, and this in itself is a sophisticated problem. The Government have not seen a way to extend the system of measurement to reference books except at inordinate cost, and reference books are, therefore, excluded from the Bill on grounds of practicability. We shall therefore move an amendment at a later stage to restrict the application of the Bill to books. Nothing would damage the interests of authors in the long term more than the failure to achieve the limited objectives that we are setting.
The second point raised in another place relates to the eligibility of foreign authors, which is dealt with in Clause 1(7)(e). As it stands, the Bill reflects an amendment in another place which restricted the eligibility to authors who were United Kingdom citizens or residents, or citizens of other countries which give reciprocity to English authors.
The Government are obtaining further legal advice on the legal issues involved and on the relevance of international copyright conventions. As a result of this advice we may be obliged to move amendments later, but there are strong policy issues involved concerning the whole of the international copyright situation, from which the United Kingdom derives a large net advantage, and, quite apart from the legal issues, the Government may decide that they cannot be justified in being too narrow in their approach to this problem. We do not expect not to have to pay for our imports, and there is no doubt that if we accept the principle of payment for services, foreign authors provide services for readers in this country.
I now turn to the question of resources. Hon. Members will accept that this is a particularly difficult time to start new programmes of public expenditure, and they will not therefore be surprised to hear that I cannot say when the resources will be available to enable this measure to come into effect. But this is no reason, in the Government's view, why we should not make a start in establishing the right and working out the way of implementing it as a consequence. This will be a complex and difficult task and it cannot be


achieved overnight. The Government are sure that authors will accept the Bill as a firm beginning to the honouring of an undertaking to provide them with a return for the use of their works in libraries—a cause for which they have striven for many years and on which there is general agreement on the merits of their case.
It would be wrong to move the Second Reading of this Bill without paying a warm tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). Just as I believe a general agreement exists in respect of the need for this measure, so, too, I believe it is generally agreed that we would not be in a position to consider this Bill had it not been for the work of my hon. Friend. Whatever disagreement there may be on the Bill, or on the scheme, I think there can be none in respect of the valuable contribution he has made.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am delighted at long last, and at six hours' notice, to welcome the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing it. Any deficiencies in her script were more than made up by the mellifluousness of her delivery.
We have a lot of people to be thankful to for the fact that we are having this Second Reading debate. We have to be thankful to whoever on the Government Benches was responsible for the error made in respect of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. We have also to be grateful to the private enterprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). With some prescience I acquired his advice on procedural matters in respect of the Education Bill a few weeks ago. Let us hope he is equally successful in that direction. Anyhow, one can say about the results of today O Felix culpa, if I may lapse into my native Latin.
The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle. We are not entirely in agreement with some of its clauses but the principle is right.

Mr. English: It is a middle-class subsidy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion; he is more an authority on the middle classes than I

am. If the cap fits, the hon. Gentleman must wear it.
I am delighted that it is one of the first acts of the period of office of Lord Donaldson that this Bill should be brought before the House. I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord. If we could not have the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as Minister for the Arts, Lord Donaldson is the next best thing. We wish him well and we look forward to a period of fruitful co-operation. The Arts should be above party politics, and we hope we shall see a new era of co-operation now opening.
The public lending right campaign has had a long history. It may be difficult for the House to believe that it is 25 years since I first became associated with Sir Alan Herbert in his pioneering campaign to secure justice for authors. Unfortunately, it took a long time for this cause to get off the ground. In November 1973, when I was appointed Minister for the Arts, it was one of my chief hopes that I would be able to play some part in getting a public lending right on the statute book. To aid that cause I sought the help of Mr. Ernie Money, then the hon. Member for Ipswich, who had a Private Member's Bill on the subject. I should like to pay tribute to him for his work in this respect. I should also like to thank Lord Goodman for the important role that he played from the Cross Benches in the other place in achieving this cause.
At the time as the Conservative Government were considering introducing a Bill on this subject, authors were divided on their approach to it. Some wished to see a purchase right and some a lending right. It was thanks to Lord Goodman that an agreement was reached. The agreement which was reached between myself and the various groups of authors was that a Bill should be introduced which would confer both a purchase right and a lending right—or, rather, the possibility of either or a combination of the two.
Which scheme was eventually to be adopted was left open in the agreed Bill. That was to be decided in the light of the report of a committee of experts which I appointed, or was about to appoint when the Government left office, to consider the extremely complicated


technical questions involved in this matter.
The point of principle established by the then Government was that the money should be provided by the Government. That was an extremely important decision of principle, because if the money had to come from local government, the local authorities would be likely simply to economise by buying fewer books and there would probably be less, rather than more, money available for authors. I am glad that the Government have adhered to the principle, which was established by their predecessors, of finance from a central source.
The sum obtained at the time was £1 million. The fact that that sum was found and was agreed by the Cabinet was primarily due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition. She was tireless and was unshakeable in the support that she gave against those Treasury advisers who were extremely reluctant to see this injustice righted.
On 7th February 1974 the Cabinet agreed to proceed along these lines, and the Public Lending Right Bill was to be introduced in March. Unfortunately, on 8th February, the day after the agreement was reached, Parliament was dissolved and the Bill then lapsed for two years. But it is important that the record should be straight on this matter. I am glad that tributes have been paid to the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) but it is a fact that the groundwork was laid by the Conservative Party, by the Conservative Government in 1974.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman now admit to the House that the groundwork was wholly wrongly laid during his disastrous 10 weeks in office? We have had to change it ever since and have spent most of our time trying to put right the mistakes he made during those 10 weeks.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thought that it would be a mistake to pay a tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but the thought came too late. I should have followed my worse judgment rather than my better and more noble judgment. I do not begrudge the hon. Member for Putney, who is sitting there looking like a cross between

Karl Marx and the Archbishop of Canterbury, his claim to be the father of this Bill. But if he can claim to be its father, I can legitimately claim to be its grandfather. In a sense that makes me the father of the hon. Gentleman, which means that I am quite a good age.
I was, naturally, anxious at that time that all the progress that had been made should not go by default. It was agreed that a pledge for public lending right should go into the Conservative Party election manifesto in February. But, owing to the speed of the election, when the manifesto was published there was no sign of the pledge. The matter has had a chequered history and we might as well get the record straight. When I inquired what had happened, I found that it had been left out in error by a typist because it was at the end of the page dealing with education. I went round to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and at his first Press conference on 11th February he pledged that public lending right would be introduced. It was not mentioned at all in the Labour Party's campaign documents, although the hon. Member for Putney, with some rather ethereal reserve, eventually pledged £5 million for the implementation of a public lending right. The pledge was for £5 million but it was subject to economic circumstances. That did not receive the publicity. The £5 million caught the headlines.

Mr. Roger Moate: Some of our hon. Friends may not understand that last point. Can my hon. Friend say by whom and when that pledge was made—bearing in mind the earlier criticism that the sum was frugal? Does my hon. Friend intend that that should be the sum?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The pledge was made by the hon. Member for Putney. I should be delighted if £5 million could be devoted to this cause, but I recognise that in the present economic circumstances it is not possible for a sum of that size to be made available. I hope that in the future the sum provided in the Bill will be increased.
I want to stress for the record that the Bill is not a concession. It is not an act of favour from the Government.


It is a simple act of justice, because authors have a right to reasonable remuneration for their work. They receive only one royalty for a book in a library which may be borrowed many times. I have already declared my interest—such as it is. I have written 10 or 12 books. For work lasting many years one receives a pitifully inadequate return. The novelist, for example, may sell 3,000 copies of a first or subsequent novel which can be borrowed about 117,000 times from libraries—that is the average calculation. The author will obtain between £600 and £800 for the sale of the book but for the 100,000 borrowings he will receive absolutely nothing.
The situation is pretty acute in Britain because of the excellence of our library service. Libraries are popular here. They average 600 million loans a year. In Germany, with a rather larger population, the loans are 75 million a year. In the United States, with a population four times that of Great Britain, the circulation from libraries is 450 million loans a year. It is excellent that we should have such a good library service, but it is right that compensation should be paid to the authors who, above all, make the service possible. It is on their contributions that the service is built up.
I am also delighted that the Government have decided to make this a lending right as such and not a purchase right. But there is a flaw in the Bill which was fleetingly referred to by the hon. Lady, that it does not extend to reference works held in public libraries. They are the books on which most work is done, and yet the least reward is given to their authors by the Bill. I hope that it will be possible in Committee to devise an amendment so that the authors of reference works are included within the scope of the Bill.
I turn to the question of the sum of money involved. The Conservative Government fixed upon £1 million two years ago. That is equivalent to only about £600,000 today. Inflation has taken its toll, but it has not been allowed for in the sum provided by the Government in the Bill. Worse still, the cost of administration, which has been estimated by the Government at £400,000, and which is much more liable to go up than to go down, leaves only £600,000 for the authors. But it would be wrong to

press for a large sum of money in our present economic circumstances. Everyone must make sacrifices.
It is true that the principle is important, but the sum should not be so small as to make the implementation of the principle in effect derisory. That was the point raised by hon. Members on this side of the House, who asked the hon. Lady whether she could say how much authors were likely to receive. The fact is that they are likely to receive probably about one-tenth of 1p. for the loan of a book. Another calculation is that an author can expect about £5 a year.
The reward to the author should not be such that it is liable to become less than the cost of the administration of the Bill. It would be a very bad principle to establish that in the law. The hon. Lady should look again at this question, to see whether the cost of administration of the scheme could not be excluded from the notional £ 1 million which is the limit on the Bill. That would not be a large addition to public expenditure but it would make the working of the Bill much more reasonable.
The Minister has given no date for bringing the Bill into operation. It is certainly not in the Bill. An indication this evening of the Government's intention would be most welcome. Perhaps the hon. Lady can give at least a rough forecast of the date on which a scheme is to come into operation. I suggest that a scheme should be submitted to Parliament not later than six months after the Bill has received the Royal Assent.
It is very bad constitutional practice to introduce a Bill embodying a principle and to say "This is the beginning of a process" but not to give any indication of where that process is to begin. In the two years that they have had, the Government should have thought out the difficulties associated with the Bill and should be ready to bring a scheme into operation. Otherwise, they should not have introduced the Bill. To introduce a Bill and say "We haven't made sufficient preparations to bring it into operation" is a dereliction of their constitutional duty.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the argument he is now advancing is to the


effect that the Bill should not have been introduced. If he wishes to see the Bill on the statute book, he would do well not to press his suggestion that the measure should not have been introduced at all until the scheme had been worked out. If he has now changed his mind from the impression he gave earlier and does not want the Bill to be enacted, he should make that plain.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Lady's logic is at fault in that she has drawn the wrong conclusion from my argument. My argument was not directed at the conclusion that the Bill should not be introduced. The effect of my argument was that the Government should have spent the period of two years constructively and should have worked out their ideas more fully. The Government are not at fault in bringing in the Bill. They are at fault in not coming to the House fully equipped with the answers to these pertinent problems. After all, they have at their disposal all the resources of the Department to give them the answers to these questions.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I think the House should know that, despite the rosy picture painted by the hon. Gentleman as to the state of affairs on this subject when he left office, it was necessary for the Department to put in a considerable amount of work in producing a scheme. The two reports are the fruits of that work, and indeed a great deal of time has been needed in bringing any scheme at all before the House. Indeed, there is still a great deal of work needed. This is a complex problem and cannot be solved overnight. Since the Conservative Party, with all its good will, did not manage to produce any scheme at all in a period of 25 years, it is a little hard for the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Labour Government of not having worked out a practicable scheme.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We produced a blueprint for a Bill, and that Bill was produced within a period of six weeks. If the Government had proceeded at the same pace as that at which we proceeded, these problems surely should have been worked out by now. Problems do not get easier to solve merely by delaying them. Within the five-year lifetime of a Parliament, a period of two years surely

should provide enough time to work out what is admittedly a complex problem. I believe that there has been a lack of urgency and drive by the Government on this matter.
I wish to make the point that it is important that if there is only a limited sum of money available it should go to the right persons. It should go to the authors and not to the publishers. It would be monstrous if the greater part of the money provided by the Bill went to the publishers and administrators and the authors got the minority share. That must be wrong. This Bill is intended to give justice to authors.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say what is the role of publishers in this scheme and to outline the benefits which they will obtain.
The Minister did not deal with the important matter of payment. It is important that no well-known author should scoop the pool and leave the less-well-known authors to get the dregs. That is an important point. I am sure that bestselling authors would be willing to accept some limitation on the amount of money which any individual can get from the sum of money available.
I put forward as a basis for discussion the suggestion that the limit should be £1,000 per author for £1 million in the pool. That would mean that everyone would get a fair share of the help available.
This debate is taking place late at night, but it is an important debate and I hope that it will be a lively one. The House is not unanimous on this subject, although I believe that there is a majority on both sides of the House who are in favour of the Bill. It is the policy of the official Opposition to support the Bill. [Interruption.] I am aware, from some of the noises I hear behind me, that there is a certain amount of dissent from the Bill. I do not complain about that. I have done my bit of dissenting in my time, and I may well have to do it again in due course. But the Bill has not only my assent but the assent of the entire Shadow Cabinet and the vast majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party. Subject to its improvement in Committee along the lines I have suggested, I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the succinctness with which she presented the Bill and wish her every success in carrying it through. I would like to have been in her position, I must confess, but, since that was not to be, it would be appropriate for me to say that, since the Bill had to be carried through by someone other than myself, I could wish for none other than her to do it.
I must make amends for being perhaps a little sharp with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Although I had the feeling that he got off on the wrong foot on the question of public lending right with his idea of a purchase right scheme, I believe that, as Shadow Minister for the Arts, he fulfils a useful and satisfactory function, and I hope that he will long occupy that position.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to me, but I must correct him. I never adhered to the purchase right as such. It was a policy developed by my predecessor. I modified it as much as I could. I was never in favour of purchase right, save that it was part of my inheritance.

Mr. Jenkins: I am delighted to hear that.
One reason why it has taken perhaps two years to reach this stage with the Bill is the complexity of arriving at the right solution. The advantage of the Bill is not so much in the wording itself but in the work which has been carried out over those two years, in which we have succeeded in establishing a loan-based scheme—a payment made to the author every time a book is borrowed—as a practicable proposition whereby, properly and fairly, the most popular authors will not scoop the pool and in which the cost of administration is no greater than the administration of purchase right would have been.
I share the view that, as a result of inflation, the percentage of the sum of £1 million mentioned in the Bill which is likely to be spent on administration—perhaps about 40 per cent.—is too high. But I also draw attention to why my hon. Friend said that that figure is likely to

decline. The first year's cost is likely to be about 40 per cent., but after that it will be a reducing percentage as an annual cost. The early years will entail a complex process of selecting 72 libraries, putting machinery into them to get a fair sample, and then rotating the sample to ensure that it works. That cost will have to be set against the early years and is likely to decline. It is also my firm conviction now, as it was in Government, that the figure of £1 million is a start.
I believe that the importance of the Bill cannot be over-estimated. We are establishing a principle the future of which will fundamentally affect the whole craft of writing, and many other things as well. We live in a society in which we pay for use. We pay for the use of our houses, for the use of our television sets, and for many other things. The proposition of payment for use is firmly established.
This principle also applies to books to some extent, because the author receives a royalty in relation to the purchase of the book. It might be said, therefore, that the principle of payment for use is recognised already by the royalty payment.
Let us compare what the author of a book receives with what is received by the writer of a play. The royalty to the writer of a play is related to the number of people who go to see it. There is, therefore, a continuing income to the writer of a play as long as the play is in use. The author of a book is in a very different position. In this country we borrow books to a much greater extent than people in any other country in the world. In other countries books are bought on a much greater scale. We are not great buyers but we are great borrowers of books.
Although our authors stand high in the estimation of the world, they are the worst paid in the world. It is easy to say, of course, that there are authors such as Agatha Christie who are wealthy, but the average author does not earn the average wage and is a poor person.
We should try to do something to mitigate the loss of the creative artist. Is there anyone in this House who thinks that the creative artist is unimportant? Is there anyone on the Socialist side who


thinks the creative artist does not matter in society? No Member on either side should dismiss the creative artist as an unimportant member of society. On the contrary, those who recognise true values in society would say that the artist who is a creative worker is the person to whom all of us owe an enormous debt.

Mr. Whitehead: I entirely agree with by hon. Friend but he has been talking of creative works, and there was an amendment about works, rather than merely books, in another place. Why is he opposed to the extension of these rights to the borrowing of cassettes from a library?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not opposed in principle. But this is an important scheme that we have before us, and it should start off on a basis on which it can be sustained and grow. If we try to do everything at once, and to include cassettes and all libraries, we shall find that we have bitten off more than the Treasury will permit us to chew at this stage. We have to start on a rather small basis. I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I think that the endeavour made in another place, to include a right for the Government to introduce works by Statutory Instrument, is the right way to go about it.
I should like the Bill to contain a provision that without fresh legislation, and by Statutory Instrument, the Secretary of State may in the future extend the Bill so that it becomes possible to include items other than books—and even to include libraries other than public libraries, to which at present the Bill is restricted. The amendments suggested in the other place should be accepted by the Government, and I hope the Government will not move against them in Committee. There are one or two other matters which the Government might consider introducing as Government amendments to the Bill.
I think that the hon. Member for Chelmsford was right in emphasising that the Bill has taken two years to reach this stage. A great deal of work has been done, however, in this period. Indeed, most of the work has already been done. There need be no great delay in presenting the scheme. The Government should place a limitation on the period of time taken to put the scheme before the House. Therefore it might be said that there

should be a period of, say, not more than six months before the scheme gets going.
It may be that the Government already have power in the Bill to increase the sum of £1 million. The £1 million will probably be all right for the first year, but I suspect that it will not be for very much longer.
As for reference books, here again I think that the right solution is not to include reference books in the Bill but, rather, to give the Secretary of State power by Statutory Instrument to include them when it becomes possible technically to do so. It must be remembered that there is a difficult technical problem involved in including them, to say nothing of the financial problems which will arise.
Having put forward those qualifications, I wish to associate myself with the welcome which has been given to the Bill. Its importance is hard to exaggerate. Merely because it is starting off on a small scale, we should not overlook the fact that this is a measure of great importance. We are recognising the right of the writer of books to participate in payment for use, as many other members of the community do. We are doing it without moving against the sacred principle of the free library. We are doing it without in any way taking money away from local authorities or library authorities. We are setting up a new central Government fund which preserves the essential basic principle of the free library. In other words, this measure will benefit the creative artist and will at the same time make us a more caring and conscious community. The Bill will bring credit to the House. Goodness knows, after the goings on in recent days, the House needs a bit of credit of this kind!

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I begin by saying that we on the Liberal Bench welcome the Bill in principle. The Minister referred to it as a scheme, but it is in fact so light-weight that perhaps "a wheeze" would be a better description. Incidentally, I noted that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) paid tribute to the hon. Lady's mellifluous delivery. It sounded more like a tribute to a midwife than to a junior Minister.
It seems to me that the whole point of this Bill is not only to recognise the contribution of the artist in our society, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkin) so rightly said, but, in many ways, to compensate the artist whose books are constantly borrowed but seldom purchased. It will be very important, in Committee, to work out some method not whereby the fat cat becomes fatter but whereby the lean author receives genuine recognition for the value of his books. This is a matter which has to be looked at most carefully.
If nothing else, I hope that there will be generous tax concessions for successful authors who do not demand payment under the public lending right.
A certain amount has been said about reference books being exempt from this legislation. I want to bring in one other matter, concerning school books. They need very special consideration.
I turn now to the question of children's books. Here I had better declare an interest. I have written not between 10 and 12 but exactly three children's books. They tend to be kept in schools without any definite pattern, but in a good school a kid can borrow any book on condition that he returns it. When this Bill is looked at with care, I hope that the position not only of the educational book but of the children's book written specially for children will be considered, to ensure that the person who writes children's books receives proper recognition.
What must be realised—and I was as disappointed about this as all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House—is that if the limit is to be £1 million, and expenses are to be 40 per cent., our authors will receive, by way of public lending rights, a sum less than twice as much as the amount lost on the House of Commons catering. It is really disgraceful that, between them, 113,000 authors are to be the recipients of £600,000, which is less than twice as much as we lose on our catering.
I hope that when the Bill goes through Committee we shall introduce a proper programme whereby those who write books which are borrowed, rather than sold, receive financial compensation for the number of times that those books

are borrowed. Let no one think that £400,000 spent on administration is anything but an insult to the 113,000 people who write books, and who will average £5 a year between them.
I realise that the public lending right debate is a certain election loser, whether or not a typist forgets to put it into the manifesto, but I hope that the Bill will get through Parliament before there is another change of Government.
I hope that hon. Members who are on the Committee—and I hope to be one of them—will remember that the idea is to compensate the poor authors, because those who write successful books are already doing very well.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I hope to be brief. I do not wish to follow in too great detail what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has said.
I found it rather difficult to follow his argument on the question of books in schools. I was not sure whether he meant text books or children's stories. Children's stories are widely purchased and circulated through lending libraries. So far, my children have resisted the blandishments of the hon. Member and have not yet brought home any books written by him. I am sure he will accept that within the library system the authors of children's books stand to gain from the Bill, as he will himself, perhaps.
I am glad that as the debate has proceeded we have been able to get away from the earlier attempts to dispute paternity and the attempt to canonise the blessed Margaret as the patron saint of authors and the "onlie begetter" of this Bill, even though it did not appear in the Conservative manifesto. I wonder whether that manifesto would be regarded as a work of reference that would not be allowed to receive the proceeds of the Bill, or a work of fiction, which would qualify. That must be left to the Registrar, along with the other onerous tasks that we are giving to the administrative framework set up in the Bill. In my view too large a proportion of the moneys allocated under the Bill's provisions is going on administration.
It is regrettable that the actual sum available, once this Bill comes into operation in two or three years time, is so measly. We do not want to remunerate the best selling, rich authors by giving them a payment exactly equated to the number of times their books are borrowed from the libraries. We want to re-remunerate the lean authors. But to give the leaner authors an average of £5 a year from the sum allocated seems extraordinarily little, given the immense apparatus that we are setting up at the same time. We could send those same authors—if the figures quoted in another place are correct and there are 113,000—about £.8·50 each as a kind of authors' Christmas box, without any of this paraphernalia, and they would be rather better off than they will be under the Bill. We should not see ourselves as being over-generous to the unfortunate authors in the actual terms of the Bill.
It is the principle of the Bill that we accept and welcome, and that we are right to accept and welcome. I pay my own warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who, as the Minister responsible for the early devilling on the Bill—if I may call it that; the Minister himself has been called many things tonight—is probably extremely happy to see it brought before the House tonight.
There are a number of things that we shall have to look at in Committee which are too complex to go into in a short debate now. The question of reference books is absolutely crucial. It is an absurdity that a reference book should be excluded from these provisions, even if that reference book has a single author. Of course, there is a problem about the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the question whether we should offer remuneration to the author of every article in it. But where a reference book is written by one or two authors—and I understand that there is provision, in the case of co-authors of books, that only one will receive payment—surely it will not be beyond the wit of the Committee to decide that we are able to extend the provisions in some way, perhaps—even if it makes the Bill a hybrid Bill—by extending purchase right to the question of reference books.
There are some libraries—and I hope some selected out of the 72 in the sample—that keep one kind of book in their reference section, perhaps because they have a singularly mistrustful chief librarian, whereas others allow that kind of book to be borrowed. Some books are categorised as reference books in one library and not in another. I hope that that will not mean that authors will be given inadequate remuneration because of what is being done in one library and not in another.
There were some interjections earlier about this being another bonus and another subsidy for the middle classes, and that the workers would be paying because it is they, on the whole, who go to the lending libraries. We must not get that attitude into our minds. Those who write books and spend a great deal of time on them find—as most authors with whom I am acquainted find—that they cannot earn a living out of writing. They should be in receipt of a working wage, just as everyone else in the country.
The provisions of the Bill make a start in principle, although they do not go very far, to giving some remuneration to authors. This will not be a tax upon the poor. It will not breach the principle of the free library. It will extend within this country a more equitable share of the resources generated by the one group of people, without whom there would be no books or publishing industry and none of the whole apparatus of public lending libraries which have been in their time the great glory of this country—that is, the authors themselves. The authors should be remunerated. The Bill is a start along that road. I hope that in Committee we can amend it along the lines suggested.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) interjected earlier on the question of our interests. Like someone else who asked that question, he has not waited for an answer. I declare my interest. I am an author and a publisher, and most of my working life has been concerned with books in some way or other.
When this idea was mooted originally, I was very much in favour of some such measure coming before the House. However, in the last few months, although


I have not exactly begun to get cold feet about it—that would be the wrong impression—I have certainly got some doubts, because I wonder what we are really attempting to do by the Bill.
Are we pursuing a principle? If we are merely pursuing a principle that authors should be remunerated for lendings, on rather the same principle that a person who makes a gramophone record is remunerated for each performance, very well; the Bill puts that principle into effect, and authors will be entitled, as one understands it, to the princely sum of £5 or so at the end of the year.
No one would pretend that that will provide a working wage for authors, assuming that writing is their only job, or that it will be an inducement to anyone to become an author.
It is sometimes suggested that some people who are capable of producing works of art are held back by lack of remuneration. If we were producing a recruitment poster, the incentive of a fiver at the end of the year—with a bit of luck—would not produce a flood of people with works of art.
It is obvious who will be well off after this Bill is passed—the Registrar. There is no doubt about his position. His salary, pension, allowances and gratuities are guaranteed—and inflation-proofed as well, no doubt. I note that he will not be regarded as a servant of the Crown. I am not doing too much angling, and I do not know how much expertise is assembled in the House, but the job is open.
We are establishing a principle in the Bill, but there will be difficulties in the administration. No doubt some of them will be solved in Committee.
Comments have been made about the difficulty over reference books. Having been on both sides of the writing industry, I find a sort of proviso in my mind. The authors of reference books will have difficulties, but I know how easy it is to sell reference books. In many ways they are easier to sell than fiction or works of art.
In justice, we should say that more money should go to the author who gets one book into a library, even if it is not borrowed a great deal. Perhaps the

authors with only one book on the shelves should receive more than the writer with five books. I do not think this is being intellectually snobbish, but one author may have written a worthwhile novel, only one copy of which gets into a library and is borrowed occasionally, while that library may have taken five copies of "Memoirs of a Window Cleaner", all of which will be borrowed constantly. Given this difficulty, are we not to apply standards at any time?

Mr. Tom Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after a great deal of difficulty. I have managed to obtain from the library at Marple, in my constituency, a copy of a book written by him? It grieves me very much that, at the moment, I shall not be in a position to pay him for it.

Mr. Walder: It grieves me that my hon. Friend did not find out about the book before, and buy it when it was on sale. I am happy that he has borrowed it, but when I start calculating how much money he will put in my pocket in the process, I find that it is a little like chicken-feed.
If one could abstain constructively on a Bill, that would be my attitude to this measure. No measure will deal with the mythical person who is starving in a garret but about to produce the great novel of the century. When I was in publishing I used to meet a number of those persons almost every week. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Bill will provide them with wealth, food and drink, or that an author will be hoping for his fiver at the end of the year if only he can get a copy into the local library.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap that one or two others seem to have been straying towards. The Bill is not providing for the support of indigent authors; it is meant to take account of the fact that, at present, authors obtain financial support only on royalties from the sales of their books, and not from borrowing. The Bill is not designed to supplement the incomes of authors at large.

Mr. Walder: That brings me back to my first point. The Bill is merely stating a principle. It is patently clear that £5


is not a living wage. We are stating a principle.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government, by means of the Bill, are stating a principle and giving financial help to authors. It may be that the financial help cannot be very much at present, but we cannot separate the principle from the finance. Provided that a scheme is produced at some stage, this is the beginning of obtaining not a hand-out for authors but, as the hon. Lady says, justice for them.

Mr. Walder: My hon. Friend comes back exactly to justice and principle. I cannot see any future Government, of whatever composition, upping the amount of public money that is spent to provide something like a living wage. Therefore, we are back to saying that we are creating a principle. I must say that it is one to which I cannot object. This is perfectly reasonable, but let us not go overboard and say that we have created a new sort of economic climate for authors. Patently we have not done that.
My last point—I really do not know why I want to mention this—is that publishers sometimes come rather badly out of some of the arguments that are advanced by groups putting forward the case for authors. The principal object of WAG, for instance, would seem to be to keep authors off the streets, but publishers come off rather badly. I remind the House that the hazards of publishing are of a different dimension from those faced by authors. However, they are as unpredictable as those of authorship. Sometimes one reaps the benefits, sometimes one does not.
I was once concerned with a book called "The Sex Life of the Primates". It was a serious book about apes. As publishers we were astounded to find that it sold in vast numbers in translation into French. It appeared that it was thought to have some reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury. All I can say is that so far as authors and publishers are concerned, one never knows. In those circumstances I am prepared to give a very qualified support to the Bill.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share all the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder), but I cannot bring myself to the pitch

of emotional support that would drive me into voting for the Bill. I find I have a considerable lack of interest in the proposal. I doubt whether it will make any contribution towards the support of the creative artists about whom I feel we should be deeply concerned. Therefore, I must express doubts, some of which have been referred to already.
It seems that unless we have full details of the scheme that is to be proposed—the details may contradict my doubts—we can assume that only the existing popular author who has achieved a position of some standing is likely to get any kind of remuneration from this scheme, or any scheme that we can envisage the Treasury approving.
Established authors, by and large, do reasonably well—some extremely well—with the sale of film and television rights, and so on. I see no reason at all to support a measure that adds further to their position, even though I appreciate the way in which some of my hon. Friends wish to emphasise the importance of the principle.
I am concerned to try to help artistes who are struggling to achieve some position. I think that I have shown that to some extent in the past by attempting to establish various forms of support for the arts and by helping to create regional organisations for the support of the arts. However unsatisfactory much of that may be. I think that is the channel which is likely to prove the most fruitful in giving support for those who wish to achieve success. That is more likely to be of use to the author who is trying to make his way than anything that is likely to come out of this kind of measure. Struggling authors will get wholly negligible assistance from this proposal. I see no prospect of them getting anything more out of any kind of Treasury provision that we could expect.
On top of that there is to be a heavy administrative charge. I welcome the fact that the libraries are not to be charged directly. Nevertheless, a great deal of the administrative work will fall on some of the libraries. I do not, and I am sure that the libraries will not, welcome that at all.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am a great admirer of the work done by my hon. Friend in the Northern Association of the Arts and I


strongly support the moves made by the Arts Council to support authors. But my hon. Friend will not wish to argue that that type of support and the public lending right are in any way in conflict. They serve two different stages in the whole process of authorship.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. I am trying to understand what kind of provision the Bill could make. I have heard a great deal of conflicting argument about different types of proposals. I should like to know how this measure will make any significant contribution to those whom I wish to assist. Therefore, I am in a deeper state of doubt than the hon. Member for Clitheroe about this proposal. I am particularly anxious about the administrative costs which are to be saddled upon us for no very obvious reason, and I see no useful product coming out at the end.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Snape.]

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Snape.]

REFUSE DISPOSAL (MANCHESTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester: The Under-Secretary of State, unfortunately, always seems to get the Adjournment debate. I think that he must have felt relieved when my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) decided to drop his debate, but the hon. Gentleman now finds himself back in another saddle because I am raising another matter with his Department. I am grateful to the Minister for coming, because this matter is of considerable local importance.
Manchester, like every great city, has a great deal of refuse. My constituency has the advantage of bordering on the River Mersey, which is agreeable in many ways, but it has disadvantages, since the valley makes it suitable for the disposal of refuse.
The principal site for some years has been a tip in another part of my constituency—Parrs Wood—where the residents have suffered for a long time from heavy lorries pounding along their highly unsuitable roads. I know that the Minister has similar problems in his constituency. Fortunately for these residents, that site is about to be closed and therefore Manchester is faced with the problem of finding another site, which it has done in another part of my constituency. We are faced with advantage to one group as one tip finishes, and disadvantage to another as a new tip opens.
We are not opposing the need to open the new tip, particularly as it is in an area that has been excavated for motorway traffic and therefore is at the moment filling up with water and is a hazard to children. The basic problem is a simple one. The tip itself is in a suitable area, but the access roads are unsuitable—even more unsuitable than the ones that are servicing the existing tip.
We have a particular problem, in that the most obvious and direct route is through a road—I shall not bother the House with the details—called Maitland Avenue, which is not capable of bearing heavy traffic, in either sense. The structure of the road would have to be reinforced considerably to bear the weight of heavy traffic, in the sense of these heavy refuse vehicles, and—in the sense of the heaviness of traffic—the number of vehicles using the road would be quite a problem, because it is a close residential area where there are many children and the normal activities of a residential vicinity.
We are faced with the need to find a solution to quite a difficult problem, and the Greater Manchester Council has investigated no fewer than nine possible routes to this tip. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a meeting at the Department with the Minister going through these nine routes. I think it would be in appropriate to go through all nine routes, but suffice it to say


that most of them transfer the problem to other roads—some of them outside my constituency, which is a bonus to us but hardly to the residents of that area, so there is not much gain there. In other cases they involve the building of special roads, and in one case it looks as though we may have to resort to compulsory purchase.
These routes have considerable difficulties, but there is one that stands out above all others and is the commonsense solution to us in Manchester. I refer to the one that has been designated as route 9. Whether we can use route 9 is in the hands of the Minister, because it involves the use of the bus lane that has been specially constructed along Princess Parkway and the slipway from the M63 to the A5103. For us to proceed, we need the Minister's consent to use those roads. We put this to him before, and although he has been courteous he has said "No". I hope that tonight there will be change of heart.
I should like briefly to put to the Minister four points which, if he is wavering, may help him to come to the right conclusion. First, it is accepted that there will be 500 vehicles a day using this tip. When I say "vehicles", I mean huge lorries full of stuff and empty ones going back rattling, and when I say "day", I mean a working day. If one works that out, it means that one of the vehicles will travel along the road each minute. That rate of nuisance is so considerable that anybody who has any influence in this area must feel that if he has a contribution to make he must make it to fight this nuisance. It will not do to regard this as a matter of precedent or of bureaucratic decision. It is a matter that the Minister has to consider against the weight of that tremendous noise and nuisance continuing for a period of five years.
Secondly, the resistance to the use of the bus lane has been shown to be unreasonable. The bus lane itself exists along the side of the main carriageway and most of the traffic would not have to weave across the flow of traffic in order to use it. The traffic could come along the nearside lane from the point where it joins the dual carriageway on to the bus lane. The Manchester authority has offered to resite the bus stop and alter the

direction of signs, and carry out any of the other minor alterations that may be necessary to make this relatively easy passage.
Thirdly, the resistance to the slip road as an exit on the tip site arises from the need for the Minister to reserve the integrity of the motorway system. I think he has particularly in mind that if one allows lorries to go to the tip certain other people may try to dodge the system and slip in and out. I agree that this is a real problem. Most unauthorised users could be stopped from using the system but, possibly, some people from the university playing fields would have to use it. My information is that this would be very slight and would be centred only on Wednesday and Saturday when the tip traffic itself would not be extensive. I realise this is, nevertheless, a weakening of the motorway regulations but it is something we should keep in perspective and which we could live with.
Lastly, I realise that the Minister has to look not only at our local problems but also at the way in which any decision will affect the motorway system and safety. We are not sadists and do not think our suggestion would create a hazard or a danger. We think the proposals we have made are perfectly safe. The site lines are adequate. The necessary adjustments could be made and we think they are sensible.
I also understand that the Minister must have regard to any precedent. One important feature is that the tip will be used for five years. To that extent the derogation from the motorway regulations could be a temporary matter. It is also one that could be kept under review. But we cannot go backwards and forwards on this matter much longer. The tip is due to be finished in June or July. Therefore, before this House rises for the Summer Recess the lorries will start rolling and there will be nothing that we can do about it. I would have thought it would be possible for the Minister at least to make an arrangement whereby we could try this system, which would involve certain expenditure, but not very much. We should try it as a temporary measure, and we could also perhaps have annual reviews. I hope the Minister will feel able to make this concession on this matter.

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I share the concern of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), having a constituency in Greater Manchester which, like his, has tips belonging to Greater Manchester within it. I know of the considerable difficulties in finding suitable sites for these.
I would not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on thinking up an Adjournment debate at such short notice, when the previous one had been cancelled, but I am grateful for the opportunity of saying what I will tonight.
The background to this matter is complicated, but the central issue involved is a simple but fundamental one; should my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relax in this instance his general standards concerning access to motorways. It is because of the difficulty we have found in weighing the arguments in favour of this fundamental policy against those important environmental considerations expounded by the hon. Member that no early decision to the problem has been possible.
The background to the problem is as follows: the proposed tip site was created when material was required for the construction of M63. Planning permission was obtained and in order to avoid using existing highways a Bailey bridge was erected over the river to give direct access. Because of the short distance between the Wythenshawe Road and the M63 junction with Princess Parkway, the original layout of the M63 junction provided for a bus lay-by to the north of the "on" slip road for northbound traffic on the Parkway with a subway for pedestrians. However, due to local pressure against subways—on grounds of molestation, nuisance and so on—it was agreed that the bus stops should be moved.
The bus stop could not be positioned to the south of the slip road, because that would have produced a dangerous conflict of traffic, with buses on the Parkway weaving with traffic making for the motorway. To overcome the problem it was decided, albeit contrary to the Department's usual policy not to permit connections to motorways and slip roads, to construct two short lengths of bus-only lanes off the slip road with a lay-by on the

bus-only lane. It was felt that the exception to normal policy was justified in view of the fairly small number of buses, and the emphasis which the Department also places on the operation of public transport. The use of the bus-only lane can be restricted by Regulations and is practicably enforceable. In discussions with the local authorities both the city council and the PTE considered that there was no reasonable alternative to the bus-only lane system.
The Department's policy—maintained under successive Secretaries of State—is that there should be no access directly on to motorways or their slip roads. The reason for this policy is quite simply one of safety. The motorway public know that indiscriminate access to motorways is not permitted and they do not expect traffic to enter or leave the special road other than at the numbered junctions. Any relaxation of this policy is bound to result in some risk of accident. It will be appreciated that in order to deal with the bus problem the Department did relax its standard to the limited extent of permitting access from the bus-only lane.
The Greater Manchester Council and the Manchester City Council have proposed that the bus-only lane should be used for a period of five years by vehicles going to the Barlow Hall Farm tip. This would not only double the number of vehicles making undesirable movements at the north of the slip road; there is another important difference between this proposal and the limited relaxation approved for buses and this is the problem of enforcement. We shall be putting a number of questions to the Greater Manchester Council about this point, and I shall come to them in a moment.
The Greater Manchester Council has considered alternative means of access to the site but has concluded that the proposed use of the bus-only lanes would be least harmful to the local environment.
Last month my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport received a deputation from GMC and the Manchester City Council at which the local authorities pressed the environmental considerations. They appreciated the Ministers' concern for road safety and they proposed certain modifications to the slip roads and bus lanes and additional signing which in their view would reduce


the potential hazard. The cost would be borne by the Greater Manchester Council.
The decision to be made, therefore, is between permitting additional access to the motorway slip roads—a road safety matter—and the routing of heavy goods traffic through residential streets.
The Minister for Transport is anxious to assist, but there are one or two outstanding points on which we need clarification. One is the difficulty of identifying the vehicles which will be using the access to the site. I understood when this was first raised that they would be corporation refuse vehicles which are clearly marked and are unique to the job. The hon. Member mentioned huge lorries. That is something we want to clear up, as it may affect the decision—whether they will be easily recognised corporation vehicles or a variety of contractors' vehicles, which would make identification more difficult.

Mr. Silvester: There is nowhere else for the traffic to go except the pit. I do not see why it should have to be identified as anything but tip traffic.

Mr. Marks: I am thinking of enforcement and of giving other motorway users a way of recognising what is being done. The tip may be open to the general public and it may be possible at certain times of the day for the public to tip their

garden refuse or other refuse there. We should be worried about that if it was permitted.
My Department will be writing to the city council and the Greater Manchester Council on this and a number of other subjects. As soon as the Department receives the corporation's reply, I propose to visit the site with council and departmental officials. After discussions, I intend to make a recommendation to the Minister and to the Secretary of State. I assure the hon. Member and all those concerned that I shall do that as soon as I can.

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer briefly to the previous business? I want to put on record the fact that the Opposition would willingly have proceeded with the Public Lending Right Bill tonight, and that we are most anxious to get it securely into Committee. The Government requested this evening's adjournment. We look forward to a further period of discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That was implied when the Adjournment was moved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.